Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-88 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA November 23, 1988 Pur~suant to due call and notice thereof a re,qular meeting of the Council of the City of Little Canada, Minnesota was held on the 23r•d day of November, 1988 in the Council Chamber•s of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Agenda Mayor• Michael Fahey chair~ed the meeting and called it to order at Item No. 1 7:30 P.M. and the following member•s of the Council wer~e present at roll call: Agenda MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor• Mr•. Michael Fahey Item No. 2 Councilman Mr. Bill Blesener~ Councilman Mr. Rick Collova Councilman Mr. Jim LaValle Councilwoman Mrs. Bever~ly Scalze ALSO PRESENT: Ci ty Cl er•k Mr~. Joseph Chl ebeck Consulting Engineer Mr. Donald Carley Ci ty Attor•ney Mr•. Thomas Sweeney Ci ty P1 anner Mr•. Steve Gr•i ttman Recor•ding Secr•etary Mrs. Kathy Glanzer• Plinutes Mr•. Fahey r•ecomnended that Resolution No. 88-11-483 of the November~ 2, 1988 Special Meeting be amended beginning at the fifth line fr•om the Agenda bottom to read as follows: "AND FINALLY TNAT NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR, Item No. 3 MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES FOR THE ADDITION TO TNE LITTLE CANADA SCHOOL PROPERTY WOULD BE TNE RESPONSI6ILITY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, HO~n~EVER, THE CITY WOULD AGREE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EXTRA-ORDINARY REPAIRS NECESSARY DUE TO CITY USE OF THE FACILITIES" with Fahey also recommending that the words "AND P1AINTENANCE ITEMS" be eliminated. Mr•. Blesener intr•oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-501 - APPROVING TNE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 1988 SPECIAL MEETING AS AMENDED The for•egoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr•. LaValle. Ayes (51 Fahey, alesener•, LaValle, Collova, Sca1ze. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r•esolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 536. Fahey r~ecommended that the fifth par~agraph on page 10 of the November 9, 1988 Council meeting minutes be amended to r•ead as follows: "Fahey felt that any progr~am should specifically focus on the goals and objectives of the City and not on developing a mission statement or~ better• personal relationships between Councilper•sons because no difficulties existed Page -1- MINUTES City Council November 23, 1988 Minutes between Councilmember•s and developing a mission statement was less (Cont.) productive use of everyone's time than goal setting. Mr. Blesener• introduced the followin9 r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-502 - APPROVI~IG THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 9, 1988 REGULAR MEETING AS AMENDED The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. Ayes (5) Blesener~, Scalze, Collova, Fahey, LaValle. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 537. Hoelscher~ Fahey opened the Public Hearing on the Thomas Hoelscher r•equest for Accessor•y conditional use permit for• accessor~y garage. Fahey pointed out that ftuilding the Planning Commission r•ecommended appr•oval of the r•equest contingent upon compliance with the r•ecommendations of the City Planner~ as contained Agenda in his November 2, 1988 repor~t. Fahey reviewed the recommen~ations of 5 Item No the Planner• which include that the height of the accessory building not . exceed 15 feet and that no home occupation or business activity take place in the additional garage. Fahey asked if there was anyone from the general public present wishing to addr~ess this matter~. There was not. Fahey asked how large the Hoelscher property was. Mr. Tom Hoelscher~ replied that his lot is 196 feet nor~th and south by 177 feet east and west. This includes NSP easement right-of-way. Fahey stated that given the size of the lot and the sur~r~ounding ar•ea, he was not opposed to the r•equest. Nowever, Fahey did not want this to be an indication that he would be in favor• of accessory buildings on all residential lots within the City. Blesener asked if ther•e was adequate room to place the accessor~y building so that it does not encroach on the drainage swale at the r•ear of the property. Hoelscher replied that the back of the garage would be 20 feet fr•om the easement ar~ea. Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution an~ moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-503 - CLOSING TNE PUBLIC HEARING ON TNE HOELSCHER ACCESSORY BUILDING CUP REQUEST Page -2- PIINUTES City Council November 23, 1988 Hoelscher The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by P4r•. Blesener. Accessor•y Ayes (5) Scalze, Blesener•, Collova, Fahey, LaValle. Building Na,ys (0). (Cont.) Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appear•s in Resolution f3ook ~lo. 20, Page 538. p1rs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-504 - APPROVING THF NOELSCHER REQUEST FOR CONDITIO~IAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY GARAGF SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH T!iE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THF CITY PLANNER AS CONTAINED IN HIS NOVEMBER 7_, 19f38 REPORT The foregoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. Ayes (5) Scalze, Collova, Fahey, LaValle, Blesener. Na,ys (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 539. Conoco Fahey opened the Public Hearing to consider~ the r~equest of Conoco for Convenience conditional use oer~mit for a convenience 9as station on the nor•theast Gas corner• of Little Canada Road and Center•ville Road. Fahey pointed out Station that the Planning Commission r•ecommended denial of the CUP due to the proposed location for the cur•b cut on Center~ville Road, which they Agenda believed to be a public hazar•d. The City Planner~ has recommended Item No. 6 approval subject to compliance with the recommendations as contained in his r•eport dated November 3, 1988. Fahe,y pointed out that a r•evised site plan has been submitted to the City Planner since the Plannin9 Commission meeting. The City Planner• r•eviewed the r~evised site plan pointing out that it now complies with his r~ecommendations for enlarging par•king stalls, loading ar•ea as r~ecommended, enclosing trash ar•ea, and moving the Centerville Road cur•b cut further to the nor•th. The Planner r•epor~ted that the Ordinance requires curb cuts to be 60 feet from an inter•section, and the curb cut as pr~oposed by Conoco is now 64 feet. Fahey asked if the County had been consulted with regard to the curb cut location on Centerville Road. Fahey repor•ted that he had concer~ns with the location of the curb cut and would like to I<now the County's position on the matter. alesener• commented that he did not agree with the point at a~hich the City Planner deter•mined the cor•ner to be. Blesener nointed out that the cur•b cut is proposed 40 to 50 feet nor•th of the actual corner• of the inter•section. Page -3- r~INUrEs City Council November• 23, 1988 Conoco The City Planner• r~epor~ted that the Or•dinance states that the corner is Convenience the location wher•e lot lines cr•oss. Gas Station Fahey stated that befor~e he would be in favor of the proposal, he would (Cont.) need to hear the County's opinion with r•egard to the curb cut and whether or not they feel it will wor•k. Fahey felt that the location of the cur•b cut will result in additional problems at the inter•section. Blesener• felt the cur•b cut would be adding a lot of tr•affic and a lot of danger to the area. Blesener pointed out that the City has a letter from one of the property owners in the area requesting a guard rail be installed in this area due to problems with car~s ending up in yards and even hitting a house. Blesener did not feel the Conoco plan submitted was a good one as far~ as the driveway locations wer•e concer•ned. Blesener felt the curb cut should 6e located fur~ther north. Fahey asked if the City Engineer had reviewed the proposal or discussed it with the County. The City Engineer r•eported that he reviewed the site with the applicant and also had concer~ns about the curb cut location on Centerville Road. The Engineer• pointed out tihat a per•mit will be necessary from the County for the cur~b cut. The Engineer stated that he had some concer•ns about the curb cut location as well. Scalze pointed out that the site plan does not show the elevations of the pr~operty which will also present some problems. Blesener• pointed out that due to the improvements in the area with the wi der str•eet and tr~affi c si gnal s, i t seems that car~s are tr•avel i ng even faster around the corner~. Blesener did not believe it would be good planning on the Council's part not to develop the McNamar•a and Mondor properties as one piece. Collova agreed, pointing out that without the Mondor• property as part of the development, that parcel will be left as a narr~ow lot along the Water 4!orks and may become useless. Blesener• pointed oiat the situation on Rice Street where two proper•ties should have been combined for development and wer•e not. The result has been problems for the City and the property owner. Fahey stated that he needed to be convinced by the experts that the cur•b cut would work. Fahey agr~eed that the best solution would be to develop both properties as one. Fahey suggested that the two pr•operties be r•ezoned PUD B-3. Fahey suggested that the curb cut be stacked out and the County asked to r•eview the pr•oposal and comment on whether~ or not it will work. Alan Br~evitz, representing Conoco, stated that he discussed the matter with the County Traffic Division as well as City Ennineer. The County's Tr•affic Engineering Oepar~tment stated that they will not deny access Page -4- MINUTES City Council November 23, 1988 Conoco to either r~oadway. However•, the County had some concer•ns. These incliaded Convenience the need for• a 10 foot radius at the curb cut entrances, pr•oper stor•m Gas Station water run-off controls with the suggestion for~ one or two catch basins (Cont.) on the site, removal of landscape material from the County right-of- way, and consider•ation for 28 or• 30 foot driveways r~ather~ than the 32 feet proposed. Brevitz r•epor•ted that Conoco would comply with these recommendations. Brevitz reported that the City Planner, City Engineer and the County Engineering Department recognize the need for one access on each roadway for~ safer• vehicular movement in and around the site. Br•evitz r•eportecl that Conoco is pleased with the recent r~oad impr~ovements in the ar~ea which they believe will promote safer• manuevering at the cor•ner. Fahey again stated his feeling that the City needs an indication from the County on whether• or• not the access would work. Br•evitz repor•ted that the pr•operty Conoco is pr•oposing to purchase consists of 33,000 squar•e feet. Br~evi tz r~epor•ted that Conoco has worked wi th Ci t,y staff on the lay-out of the facility and that the site plan meets or exceeds City setback requirements. Br•evitz also r•epor•ted that the pr•oposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for• the site as well as sur~r•oundi ng area. Br•evi tz r~eported that the pr•operty i s zoned for commer•cial development, and the pr~oposal is changing a non-confor~ming use to a confor•ming ~ase. Brevitz informed the Council that Conoco's investment in the pr•operty will exceed $500,000. Brevitz pointed out that the pr•oposal will incr•ease the City's tax base. Scalze pointed out that und.er• the conditional use per•mit pr~ocess the City has the oppor•tunity to look at things like safet,y, traffic hazar•ds, etc. Brevitz reported that he has tr•affic counts at the intersection if the Council is inter•ested. Brevitz r~eported that Conoco has studied the marl<et for• the proposal, as well as tr•affic issiaes and demogr•aphics. The pr•oposal has also been r•eviewed by landscape architects, planners, etc. to develop the site in an attr•active manner. Fahey asked if there was anyone fr~om the gener•al public pr•esent wishing to comment. P9rs. Mondor~, Centerville Road, reported that the inter~section is very danger~ous with high traffic speeds. P9ondor reported that ther•e have been many accidents in the ar~ea and even her~ house has been hit by a car•. Scalze stated that since the r•oad improvements have been completed, it appears to her that tr~affic is moving even faster ar~ound this corner. Fahey pointed out that the City has received a letter• from a number of proper•ty owner~s i n the ar•ea opposi ng the pr~oposal . Br•evitz submitted pictur•es of a typical Conoco facility. Page -5- MINUTES City Council November 23, 19f38 Conoco Scalze pointed. out that the City previously offered Tax Increment Convenience Financing on a previous development proposal for this property if Gas Station the Mondor proper~t,y were included in the pr•oposal. Scalze suggested (Cont.) that this might be something the Council wishes to consider• again. Scalze asked if the only major change in the site plan fr~om what was pr•esented to the Planning Commission is the relocation of the Centerville Road curb further north. The Planner• stated that this was correct. Fahey felt that the proposal should be tabled until the City Engineer has an opportunity to study it as well as obtain input fr~om the County. LouFlnn Drake, property owner at Centerville Road and Racine Orive, stated that she was opposed to the pr•oposal agreeing with pr•evious comments that there is a dangerous traffic situation on Centerville Road. Qrake did not believe the curb cut as proposed would work. There was no one else from the gener•al public present wishing to speak. P~r•. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moued its adoption: RESOLUTIOPI N0. 88-11-505 - CLOSIDI6 THE PUBLIC HEARING 0~! THE CONOCO REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERP1IT TO COPJSTRUCT CONVEDIIENCE GAS ST4ITION A.T THE I~ITEP.SECTION OF LITTLE CANA~A ROAD AND CENTERVILLE ROAD The foregoing resolution was duly seconc!eci by Mr. Blesener. Ayes (5) Fahey, Blesener, LaValle, Scalze, Collova. Na,ys (0). Resolution declared ac!opted. This r•esolution appears in Resolution Book Pdo. 20, Page 540. Blesener again stated his feeling that the development proposal should include the P9ondor property as well. Blesener pointed. out the situation on Rice Str~eet where he felt two properties should have been required. to be developed together and resulting problems that have faced the Council because these two parcels were not combined. Fahey felt that befor~e action is taken on the pr•oposal, input should be sought from the County Engineer. The Cit.y Engineer~ stated. that his fir~st reaction is that this is a ver•y bad corner. liowever~, the City Engineer• stated that he would like to discuss the situation with the County. The Engineer• stated that he would be sur•prised if the County appr•oved the curb cut on Centerville RoaA as proposed. Page -6- MINUTES City Council November• 23, 1988 Conoco Blesener• pointed out that the statement was that the County would not Convenience deny the curb cut. Gas Station (Cont.) LaValle stated that he had a difficult time approving the proposal because of the curb cut as pr•oposed and the tr~affic flow at the inter•sec tion. LaValle did not see how the situation would work. Collova felt the traffic signals at the intersection were confusing, and questioned the feasibility of another driveway at the inter~section. Mr. ~lesener intr•oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-506 - DENYING THE CONOCO RFQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONVENIENCE GAS STATIOP! DUE TO THE FEELING OF THE COUNCIL THAT THE DRIVEtdAY AS PROPOSED ON CENTERVILLE ROAD WOULD BE A DAMGEROUS SITUATION AND BASED ON THE PLANNING COP1MISSI0~1'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF THE CUP b1ITH THE FEELIPJG OF THE CITY COU~ICIL THAT IT IS NOT GOOD PLAN~lI~1G TO FOCUS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE WITHOUT INCLUDING THE MONDOR PROPERTY AS WELL The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. LaValle. Ayes (4) Blesener~, LaValle, Collova, Scalze. Nays (1) Fahey. Resolution declared adopted. This r•esolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Pages 541 and 542. Fahey stated that he did not vote in favor of the r•esolution since he would like mor•e infor•mation from the County Engineer before acting on the proposal. Fahe,y suggested that perhaps the City should consider r•ezoning the pr~operty to PUD, including the Monc!or~ property. Fahey felt this would give the City more control over• what is developed on the pr•operty. Scalze agreed, and also pointed out that Tax Incr•ement Financing may be a tool the City should iase to get both of these parcels to develop as one. The City Planner pointed out that the City had the option of leaving the pr•operty B-3 but requiring a conditional use permit pr•ocess for any development proposal for the pr•oper~ty, or• the City could rezone the pr•operty to PUD. Qlesener~ sugoested that the City Planner• review these two options and give the Coiancil a recommendation. However, in the meantime, the Council could call for• a public hear~ing on the rezoning. Mr•. Fahey introduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: Page -7- r~zr~uTEs City Council November 23, 1988 Conoco RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-507 - CALLI~~G FOR A Convenience PUBLIC HEARING FOR DECEMQER 28, 1988 TO Gas Station CONSIDFP. REZONING OF TNE P10NDOR AND McNAMARA (Cont.) PROPFRTIES TO PUD AND/OR ADOPTING A POLICY THAT ANY CO~IDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUFST FOR SUCH PROPERTY WOULD BE PROCESSED ODJ A PUD BASIS The foregoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Rlesener. Ayes (5) Fahey, elesener, Collova, LaValle, Scalze. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted.. This resolution appears in Resolution Book ~lo. 20, Page 543. Blesener suggested that the City Engineer and Public blorks Superintendent be instr•ucted to discuss with the County Engineer what could be done with this corner to improve safety, with the understanding that this corner~ will eventually develop. Coiancil agreed and so instriacted the Engineer• and Super•intendent. Fahey also suggested that given the tr•affic situation and grade of the ar~ea the County should be asked what their• opinion was for the safest c~ar•b cut 1 ocati on al ong Center•vi 11 e Roa~. Imp. No. Fahey opened the public hear~ing on the impr~ovement of Ryan Dr~ive from 88-24 Spriace Str~eet to Country Drive by bituminous over•lay and gr•avel Ryan Drive shoulders. Fahey reported that the City Engineer has submitted a feasibility repor•t for• this improvement which estimates the cost of Ager~cia the improvement to be $32,021. Item No. 7 The City Engineer• appeared before the Council and reviewed his y reoort. The Engineer~ reported that at the last Council feasibilit , meeting the Council r•equested some alternatives that could be considered. Ther~efor~e, the City Fngineer submitted Options Q and C in addition to Option A which was submitted at the last Council meeting. Option B included digging up approximately 8 feet of depth under the street and replacing that material with sand and a fabric filter, replacing base and blacktopping. Estimateci cost is $87,472. Option C included grinding off the bumps in the street and installing 6 to 17_ inches of gr•avel and per•iodic grading of the street. Estimated cost is $6,248.00. The Engineer r•eported that estimated assessments per lot under Option A~,vould be approximatel,y R4,007, under Option B$10,934 and under Option C $781. Fahey pointed out that ther•e is no other• industr•ial road in the City that is gr~avel. Fahe.y did not feel it feasible to ever consider~ Option C. Page -8- MINUTES City Council November 23, 1988 Imp. Plo. Fahey asked if ther•e was anyone fr•om the general public pr•esent wishing 88-24 to comment on this matter. (Cont.) Russ Fisher, 208 Ryan Drive, appeared before the Council and asked if Ryan Drive was ever~ inspected by the City when it was being constr~ucted. Fahey pointed out that Ryan Drive is not a City road and has never been accepted by the City. Scalze pointed out that the reason the improvement is being considered is because the City has r•eceived a petition signed by 35% of the benefited pr~operty owners requesting the improvement. Fisher• reported that three times he has impr•oved the shoulder~ of the r•oad adjacent to his pr~oper~ty, and the material keeps disappearing. Fisher reported that the entir~e road is disappear•ing. Fisher• questioned the ability of Ar~t Ryan to develop Ryan Industr•ial Park without providing pr~oper• access into the area. Fahey asked the City Engineer for the thinking of the then present Council in allowing Ryan Drive to go in when it would never• meet City specifications. The City Engineer~ reported that the City informed Mr. Ryan that the r•oad would never• meet City standar•ds. The Engineer~ stated that the r~oad was str•ictly an exper•iment to see if it would hold up, pointing out that ther~e i s 30 feet of peat under• that r•oad. Scalze asked Fisher what Ryan told him about the r•oad at the time he pur~chased his lot. Fisher replied that Ryan never said anything about the r•oad. Fisher stated that it was his feeling that the City should never have let Ryan sell any land in the park without pr~oper~ road access. Scalze agreed that it was unfor~tunate that this was done, however•, the pr~esent Council is tr~ying to deal with the situation the best way it can. The City Engineer pointed out that in the past two overlays have been done over~ Ryan Dr~ive. Mr. Roger• Stanke, pr~oper•ty owner• on Ryan Dr•ive, reported that Mr•. Ryan paid for~ those overlays. Fisher stated that he would like to see the road improved, however, did not feel he should have to pay for the cost of doing so. Roger Stanke, 209 Ryan Drive, r•epor•ted that the r•oad condition keeps getting wor~se. Stanke agr~eed that the road needed to be repaired, however~, did not believe he should have to pay for• it. Stanke pointed out that Ryan Dr•ive i s hi s only access to hi s pr~oper•ty. Stanke al so r•epor~ted that ther•e have been some ver•y bad accidents on Ryan Dr•ive. Stanke felt that the road r•epairs should be done right and that Mr. Ryan should pay for them. Page -9- P9IPJUTES City Council November 23, 1988 Imp. No. Stanke reported that when he purchased his pr•operty in 1975, Art Ryan 88-24 informed him that he would have r•oad access. Stanke pointed out that (Cont.) Ryan paid for the other• overlays to the street. Stanke suggested that for• the time being a temporar•y repair be done, and the propert,y owner~s, Ar~t Ryan and Council could discuss a mor~e permanent solution over the winter months. Blesener agr•eed, feeling that the bumps in the road should be gr•ound off for• now, and some Class U added. Blesener• suggestec! that over~ the winter the Council discuss the issue. Qlesener• felt that any r~epairs done, should be d.one right. Blesener pointed out that ther~e are other• areas of the r•oad that need repairs and suggested that the entire problem be looked at. Stanke agreed that the bumps should. be gr~ound off now with a per~manent r•epair• done in the spring after• study of the issue over the winter. The Public LJor•ks Superintendent pointed out that if the bumps ar•e ground down, there should still be some bituminous that will hold up over• the winter. Eilesener suggested that the Cit.y pick up the cost of the grinding until such time as the mor~e permanent r•epairs are made. Then the cast can be passed on to whoever is going to pay for• the imrpovement. Frank Frattalone estimated the cost of grinding the bumps in the road andinstallinc~ some Class V at $6,000. Frattalone also suggested another alternative to those suggested by the City Engineer. Frattalone suggested that the str~eet be dug out to a depth of 3 feet and 3 feet of sand brought in. Fr~ttalone also suggested a double layer of fabric and 4 inches of bituminous. Frattalone felt that the sand and fabric miould help to hold the r~oad in place. Frattalone stated that he did not believe the railroad ties which ar•e located under the r•oad were causing the problems with the bumps in the road. Fr•attalone felt the problem may be the different types of mater~ial under• the road such as concr~ete, fly ash, dir~t. Stanke asked if the City h~d any plans to br•ing sewer and water down R,yan Or•i ve. Fahey r~eplied that ther•e were no such plans. Fr•attalone stated that if the road wer~e repair~ed cor•rectly, he would be willing to pa,y his share of the cost of an,y assessment. There was no one else present wishing to speak on this matter. Mr. Fahe,y introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-508 - CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON IP1P. N0. 88-24 Page -10- P1I NUTES City Council Nov. 23, 1988 Imp. No 88-24 (Cont.) The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. Ayes (5) Fahey, Blesener, Collova, Scalze, LaValle. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 544. P1r. Blesener intr•oduced the following r~esolution and moved. its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-509 - INSTRUCTING THE PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT TO CONTRACT TO NAVE THE BUMPS ON RYAN DRIVE GROUPJD OFF AND SHOULDERS QUILT UP, KEEPING TRACK OF THE COSTS SO TNAT THEY CAN BE PASSED ON TO THE BENEFITED PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE FUTURE, AND INS'fRUCTING THE CITY EPlGINEER TO LOOK AT OTHER METHODS OF REPAIRING RYAN DRIVE > N<Ays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Triis resolution appears in Reso1ution Book No. 20, Pages 545 and 5G6. The foregoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr. 1=ahey. Ayes (5) Fahey Dlesener, Sca~ize, Collova, La.Valle. Rezoning -io F"ahey opened the Public Heariny to consider the rezoning of oor~tions of PUD Section 8 from I-1 to PUD. Fahey reported that the Planning Commission Portions has tabled action on the r•ezoning f u ibilit in or•der rading to give the City the standar•ds of Planner the I-1 of Se~tion 8 y o time to study the poss pg Distr~ict as an alternative to the rezoning. Agenda Fahey asked if ther~e was anyone from the general public pr•esent wishing Item No. 8 to comment. Fr•ank Frattalone, property owner in the area, r•epor•ted. that he was satisfied with the tabling in order for the Planner• to study the issue. Fahey pointed out that when the Planning Commission tables an issue, the Commission has 60 days in which to act on a pr~oposal before the Council can act. Therefor~e, Fahey suggested that the public hearing be continued until the second meeting in January. Mr•s. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-510 - CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSAL TO REZONE PORTIONS OF SECTION 8 FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNTI~ TNE SECOND COUNCIL MEETING IN JANUARY, 1989 BASED ON TNE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO TABLE THE MATTER PENDING A REPORT FROF9 THE CITY PLANNER Pane -11- MINUTES City Council Pdov. 23, 1988 Rezoning The foregoing resolution was duly seconded b.y Mr. Blesener. Section 8 Ayes (5) Scalze, Blesener, Collova, Fahey, LaValle. (Cont.) Na.ys (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r~esolution appears in Resolution Book ~lo. 7_0, Page 547. Rezoning Of Fahey repor~ted that the Planning Commission has tabled action on the Frank Fr•ank Frattalone request to rezone his proherty from I-P to I-1, in Frattalone order to give the City Planner an oaportunity to study the issue of Property the zoning standards of the I-1 District. From I-P To Light P1r. Blesener• introduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: Industr~i al RESOLUTIOPI N0. 88-11-511 - TA[iLING ACTION ON Aqenda THE FRAPdK FRATTALOPJE REQU[ST FOR RF7_ONINf OF Item I~o. 9 HIS PP,OPERTY FROP9 IDIDUSTRIAL PARK TO LIGFIT INDUSTRIAL UNTIL THF SECOPdD MEETING IN JFlNUARY, 1989 DUG TO PLANPJING COMP~ISSIOP! ACTION TO TABLE THE MATTER PENDING A RFPORT FP,OP4 THE CITY PLANNER The for•ec;oing r•esolution was duly seconded b,y Mr. Fahe,y. Flyes (5) Blesener, Fahey, Scalze, LaValle, Collova. Na,ys (0). Resolution declared adooted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 548. Text The City Planner submitted to the Council for action a proposed text Amendment amenciment to the City's Si,qn Or•dinance which r~equires signs to be br•ought Sign into conformance on proper•ties when the impr•ovement to the property is Ordinance at least 50% of the value of the property. Agenda Fahey r•eported that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Item No. 11 text amendment. Fahe,y asked if ther~e was an,yone from the gener•al public present wishing to comment on this matter. There was not. Mr. Blesener~ introduced the following r•esolution and. moved its adoption: RESOLUTIOrI ~10. 8II-11-512 - CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TFXT AMENDMENT TO TNE CITY'S SIGN ORDINANCE The for•egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr. LaValle. Ayes (5) Blesener, LaValle, Fahey, Scalze, Collova. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r•esolution aopears in Resolution Book ~lo. 20, Page 549. Page -17_- MINUTES City Council Nov. 23, 1988 Sign Scalze asked who would. determine the valiae of an improvement. Ordinance (Cont.) The City Planner• replied that the City's ordinance provides for the City Assessor• to determine improvement values, which is the County Assessor under the ordinance. ~1r. Rlesener introduced the following or•dinance and moved its adoption: ORDINANCE N0. 308 - AN ORDIPIANCE AMENDIPdG THE LITTLE CAPIADA CODE CHP,PTER 903.110. SIGNS The foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Mr. Fahey. Ayes (5) Blesener•, Fahey, Scalze, Collova, LaValle. Nays (0). Or~dinance declared adopted. Fahey opened the Public Hear•ing on the proposed text amendment eliminating Text ~mendment the lot cove rage limitation in the I-P District. r•oval d a d • Fahey pointed out that of the text amendment. Lot the Planning e pp ecommen Commission has r Coverage In I-P Fahey asked if there was anyone from the general public pwesent wishing Distr•ict to comment o n this matter. There was not. Agenda Mrs. Scalze introd.uced the followino resolution and moved its adoption: Item No. 11 RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-513 - CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARINf ON TNE TEXT AMEDIDMENT REGARDING LOT COVERAGE IN AM I-P DISTRICT The foregoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. F1yes (5) Scalze, Blesener•, Collova, Fahe,y, LaValle. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 550. Mr•s. Scalze introdi.iced the following Or•dinance and moved its adoption: ORDINANCE N0. 309 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINAPICES FOR THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA BY AMENDING CHAPTFR 918.050 PERTAI~IIMG TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS The foregoing or•dinance was dul,y seconded by Mr•. Blesener. Ayes (5) Scalze, Blesener, Collova, Fahey, LaValle. ~la,ys (0). Or•dinance declared adopteG. Page -13- MINUTES City Council "ov. 23, 1988 Carla Lane Agenda Item No. 12 Bankshot Billiards Agenda Item No. 13 The City Clerk reported that the Carla Lane matter~ has been deleted fr•om the agenda. Mr•. Michael Schifsky, representing Bankshot Billiards, appeared before the Council requesting that the tempor~ar~y hours of operation for~ Bankshot [~illiards be made permanent, specifically that the business is allowed to remain open until 4 A.M. The City Council reviewed the policy report for the establishment and found it to be acceptable. It was noted that the City has received no complaints about the business. The City Clerk asked if Bankshot Billiards had a pr~ocedure to pr~event drinking in vehicles by their• patr•ons. Schifsky reported that Bankshot Dilliards has a two times out policy and then the patr•on is not allowed to return. This prevents the situation wher•e patr•ons are dr~inking in their• cars. Schifsky also reported that Bankshot Billiards moniters the par~king lot as best they can, and with the addition of other• businesses in the center•, there is gr~eater visibility of the par~king lot. Blesener r•eported. that he discussed Bankshot Billiards with the other businesses at the shopping center, who indicated that they have had no problem with this particular business. Blesener pointed out that the police calls to Dankshot Billiards wer•e not in the 2 A.M. to 4 A.M. time frame. Mr~. Fahey intr~oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-514 - GRANTING 13ANKSHOT BILLIARDS THEIR REQUEST FOR CLOSING TIME OF 4 A.M. WITHOUT LIMITATIOl~ TO BE REVIEWED IN THE FUTURE ON A COMPLAINT BASIS BY THE CITY COUNCIL The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. LaValle. Ayes (5) Fahey, LaValle, Scalze, Collova, Blesener•. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r~esolution appears in Resolution 6ook No. 20, Page 551. Little Scalze suggested that before the Council gets into discussing the City's Canada par•ticipation in the cost of showers and lockers and stor•age space at Elementar•y the Little Canada Elementary School, the Council should discuss wher•e the School money would come fr•om for these impr•ovements. Addition Fahey reported that the City's Committee as well as Diane Husak and representatives of the School Distr•ict have met to discuss the issue of Page -14- MI~;UTES City Council Nov. 73, 1~88 Little the cost ofpstor•a~easpace,nshowerstand lockeaSSchFahey~repo~tedythatding Canada 9 Elementar~y it was the concensus that stor~age space should be restr•uctur~ec! to allow School access to this space fr•om the gym floor•. Fahey also reported that Flddition the Committee met with Dave 0'Conner, Principal at the school, to discuss (Cont.) the possible use by the City's gymnastics program of the proposed stage ar•ea. Fahey r•epor•ted that it has been found. that ther~e is new gymnastics equipment available that can be anchored to the floor• and bolted to walls. This equipment collapses against the wall, and would be ideal for• the City's use on the stage area. Blesener• pointed out that a cur•tain could be used to cover• the equipment when it is collapsed. Fahey r•epor•ted that the pr~incipal did not foresee any conflicts with the City's use of the stage ar•ea. Fahey also r•eported that it was discussed that the City could purchase mats and store them under the stage area and it was suggested that these mats could be used by the school as well. Fahey r•epor•ted that some of the gymnastics equipment could be put on r~oller~s for easy mobility in and out of the storage ar•ea. Tom Dunwal l, ar•chi tect for• the School Di str•i ct, r•eported on the School District's need to add on to the Little Canada Elementar•y School due to incr•easing elementar•y population. Dunwall r•eported that a task force had been for•med to study the addition and after• study the proposal befor•e the Council this evening has been put together•. Dunwall explained the addition which will include 9 additional classr•ooms, multi-purpose r•oom, music room a.nd supnort facilities. After discussions with the City, Dunwall reported that the plans have been revised to provide for a locker r•oom and shower• r•oom as well as storage space for the City's gymnastics pr~ogram. Dunwall descr~ibed the proposed additional parking areas on the outsid~ of the addition, which includes a looped ar~ea for~ dr•op-off of children by buses and parenCs. There are also additional par•king spaces provided on the west side of the addition adjacent to the City's par•king lot. Dunwall explained that the school offices will be moved fr~om the existinc7 school building into the new addition. Dunwall described the proposed entranceway of the new addition which will face Eli Road. Dunwall descr•ibed the floor plan in detail as well as the facade pr~oposed for• the addition. Fahey asked about the storage space for• the City's gymnastics pr•ogr•am. Dunwall described the storage space which consists of 265 squar•e feet and. has access to the stage area. Dunwall reported that ther~e will be another 265 square feet of stor•age above the mezzanine ar•ea which will also be available for~ City use. The plans show 200 square feet of stor•age area on the opposite side of the gym which is planned for School District usage. Fahey asked how lar•ge the locker room and shower facility was. Page -15- P9I NUTES City Council Nov. 23, 1988 Little Canada E1 ementar~y School Addition (Cont.) Dunwell descr•ibed the locker room and shower• facilities. Fahey pointed out that the Committee discussed with the School District that access to'the storage area would be from the gym floor. John Thein stated that it was his understanding that Diane Husak would prefer access to be from the stage area. It was noted that Husak would be arr•iving in a few minutes and she could clarif,y this point. Collova asked how much clearance there would be under the stage area for storage. Dunwell estimated over 2 feet of clearance, but noted that there will not be storage under• the entire stage as it would be difficult to access the back por•tion. Scalze asked the square footage of the shower and locker r•ooms. Dunwell estimated this squar~e footage to be 625 square feet. Estimated cost of the shower~ and locker• r•ooms is $55 to $60 per~ square foot. Estimated cost of the storage space is $45 to $50 per~ square foot. Dunwell estimated a maximum cost of $75,000 for~ both the storage and showers and locker~ r~ooms. Blesener asked if ther•e would be a substantial savings for including the shower and locker~ room space, but not finishing off this area. Dunwell estimated that approximately 25% of the cost could be saved if thi s wer•e done. Scalze pointed out that the School Distr•ict has been very cooperative in this pr•ocess, but she questioned the need for the showers and locker rooms and where the money would come fr•om. Scalze pointed out that the City has received input fr•om its parks and recr•eation people who do not want the shower and locker• r•oom improvements. This view is shared by the City's Recreation Department as well as Recr•eation Association. Scalze pointed out the position of the Park Commission that if the shower~ and locker rooms are improved, the money should not come fr•om the Park Land Develop- ment Fund nor the Par~k Department's Capital Outlay Budget. Scalze reviewed the coments of the Par•k Commission Chairman which are contained on page 9 of the minutes of a recent Commission meeting. Collova noted that he stood cor~rected on the Chairman's position on this issue. Fahey felt that r~easonable minds could differ• on this issue. Fahey felt that the Council had to look to the futur•e on this issue, noting that the City's population has not reached its saturation point, nor have there been efforts to pr~omote an adult r~ecreation pr•ogr•am within the City. Page -16- r~zNUrEs City Council Nov. ?3, 1988 Little Canada Fahey pointed out that the facility as proposed with sViowers and locker Elementary r~ooms would he condusive to adult r~ecr~eation. Fahey also pointed out School that while such facilities ar•e available in other School Distr•ict Addition facilities within the City, the Cit,y is not sur~e what the School Distr•ict's (Cont.) plans ar~e for these facilities. Fahey felt that the expenditure of $50,000 for showers and locker rooms would be a wise decision for the long-ter~m and will not effect the development of the Centerville Road Area Par~k. Fahey pointed out that the two char•ities which have been donating to the Par•k Land Development Fund do not wish the money for• showers and the locker rooms to come from this fund. However, these charities have indicated that ther•e are a couple of other sources for this money. Fahey pointed out that ther~e is presently $425,000 in the Park Land Development Fund, including an $80,000 tax levy for next year•. Fahey repor•ted that under the City's cur~rent financial obligations, there will be a$80,000 surplus which could be used towards the cost of the stor•age space, shower~s and locker rooms, without any effect on the City's recreation progr•am. Fahey also pointed out that after School Distr•ict use, the City will have the fir•st use of these facilities at no cost to the tax payer. Scalze felt that the two issues wer~e separate. Scalze pointed out that no one has said that the City should not spend money for the stor•age space. However~, ther~e is question as to the neecl for• the shower•s and locker• rooms. Scalze pointed out the need for~ playground equipment in the City and felt this was a higher priority than the showers and locker rooms. Scalze stated that she would like to see the shower• and locker• r~oom space used for storage and if the need arises for• the shower•s, the space could be conver~ted. Blesener agreed with Fahey's comments. Fahey pointed out that two weeks ago the Council appr~oved the City's par•ticipation in the cost of showers and locker r~ooms, contingent upon financing of these improvements. Fahey pointed out that the City has the financial capability and will proceed with the improvements unless there is a motion to r~econsider. Scalze pointed out that without the showers and locker room improvement, the money would. pr~obably be spent on the impr•ovement of the Centerville Road Area Park. Fahey stated that the City Council would be shor•t-sighted in not planning for the future. Fahey pointed out that this has been a big criticism of past Councils. LaValle pointed out that the City's Recreation Director has r•epor•ted that there is no need. for the facilities. LaValle asked what will happen wi th the shower•s and 1 ocker r~ooms, i f no adul t r~ecr•eati on progr~am gets off the ground in the next few years. LaValle also asked what will Page -17- MINUTES City Council Nov. 23, 1988 Little Canada El ementar•y School Addition (Cont.l happen if the School Distr•ict decides to sell the Little Canada Elementar•y School facility. Fahey pointed out that as part of the City's participation in the pr•oject, the School Distr~ict will enter into an agreement with the City pr•oviding for a 5 percent declining balance for~ each year after~ the impr•ovements are made. If the School facilities ar~e no longer• available for City use, the School Distr•ict will have to r•eimburse the City for~ the r~emaining balance of the City's cost. Blesener• pointed out that the City takes the risk of other recreational programs having declining participation, for example, softball usage may decline in the next sever~al years. LaValle pointed out that the Recreation Director does not see the need for• the showers and locker rooms. LaValle stated that he was also concerned that the building may not be available to the City in the future. Scalze again pointed out the comments of the Recreation Director, Park Commission Chairman, and Park Commission itself on the issue and the fact that ther~e are three other facilities within the City which have showers and locker rooms. Scalze felt that at least one of these facilities would be available for City use in the future, even if all were not. Scalze r~eported that she previously voted on the motion for City par•ticipation in the project only because it included the storage space. Fahey felt that the previous motion should be r•econsider•ed. LaValle asked if the City does not par~ticipate in the shower•s and locker• rooms, if the City could still have storage space in the school. John Thein replied that this would be a School Board decision. Thein repor•ted that the School Board is supportive of the plan as it is pr•esented now. Fahey pointed out that the School District has indicated that they will start char•ging for• use of school facilities. Fahey commented that while the charge is nominal at this time, it could be increased in the futur~e. Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-515 - RECONSIDERING RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-483 REGARDING TNE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE LITTLE CANADA ELEMENTARY SCNOOL ADDITI0~1 The for•egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr. LaValle. Ayes (2) Scalze, LaValle. Nays (3) Fahey, Blesener, Collova. Resolution denied. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 552. Page -18- MINUTES City Council Nov. ?3, 1988 Little Fahey pointed out that as it stands the City will go for~ward with the Canada pr•oposed involvement in the addition to Little Canada Elementar~y School Elementary subject to the City's bein,q able to negotiate an agr•eement with the School School Distr•ict. Fahey repor•ted that he has been discussing this agr•eement Add.ition with the City Attor•ney. (Cont.) John Thein r•eported that he just discussed the access issue with Diane Husak who indicated that she prefer•r~ed the storage ar~ea to access the gym floor rather• than the stage ar~ea. Fahey suggested that Husak review the plans once they have been changed. Or•ganized Kathy Tipler, r~epresenting the City's Solid Waste Committee, appear•ed Collection before the Council and reported on the City's efforts to begin curbside r•ecycling in the City. This pr•ogram was begun with the aid of a gr•ant Agenda fr~om Ramsey County. However~, as a r•esult, the grant said that the City Item No. 10 must look at organized collection. The grant was for• two year•s, after which time the City has to seek permanent funding. Tipler reported that the Committee has looked at a number• of different collection systems which r•ange fr~om the City's going into the business to doin~ nothing. Tipler~ r•eviewed the r•epor•t that the Committee submitted to the Council, and this repor•t outlines the thr•ee most wor•kable solutions that the Committee has found. The first includes leaving the open home system in place with the City funding the r~ecycling and compost system. The second is that the City insist that the gar•bage haulers form a consor•tium and divide the City into sections equal to the number of haulers. The thir~d is that the Ci ty ne9oti ate wi th one contr~actor~ or• gr•oup of contr~actor•s. Tipler• r•e~orted that the Committee felt it would be easier• for• the City to negotiate with one contractor. However•, ther•e is a legal pr~oblem if the City insists the haulersform a consortium, but the haulers have the option of forming themselves. Tipler~ r•epor•ted that the City could put or•ganized collection out for• bid. Fahey pointed out that the Solid ~Aaste Committee has held a public hearing on this issue, and it is necessary that the City Council hold a public hear•ing as well. Fahey pointed out that the Council must announce its consider•ation of adoption of an ordinance to or•ganize collection, and invite people to plan and establish the or~dinance. The City Attorney pointed out that the legislation on this issue is not ideally cr~afted and ther•e are different inter•pretations of it. The Attorney sugqested that the Council obtain as much information as possible on the issue so that it can decide the type of or•dinance it wants to put in place. The Attorney also pointed out that another option the City has is to negotiate with the hauler•s r•ather than putting the matter~ out for bid. Blesener asked if a consortium wer•e formed, if the matter had to be bid Page -19- MINUTES City Council November 23, 1988 Or~ganized or~ negotiated. Collection (Cont.) The City Attorney r•epor•ted that the matter• could be bid or negotiated. Colleen Halpine, Ramsey County Solid!~!asteSection of the Public Nealth Depar•tment, repor•ted that the County advocates that cities adopt an organized collection system. It is up to the City to decide how to go about it. Halpine r~eported that the major~ advantage of organized collection is the contr•act that the City will have with haulersso that everyone knows what is expected of them and the price that the City or citizens will have to pay. The City will also be assured that they will have services pr•ovided that will be necessar~y in the futur•e. Halpine repor•ted that as of Januar~y 1990 the County will r~equire separate yard waste collection. These services will have to be monitor•ed and paid for•. Or~ganized collection will be a better system so that everyone knows what is expected of them. Scalze asked if chipper•s will be provided at composting sites. Halpine replied that the County thinks it will have to provide chippers at yar~d waste composting sites. Fahey pointed out that there are two issues, whether• the City adopts an or•ganized collection system and if the City adopts the recommendation of the Solid Waste Committee which is to contr•act with one hauler. Fahey asked if there was anyone fr•om the general public pr~esent wishing to comment on this matter. Kevin Nordby, Wood.lake Sanitation, r~eported that by law the City is not r•equired to organize collection, but only to look at the system. Nordby pointed out that ther•e are four haulers present this evening that wor~k in the City, and if the Council adopts the Committee's recommendation, there will be only one hauler• allowed to work in the City. Nordby r~eported that al l the Ci ty' s haul ers suppor~t r~ecycl i ng. Nor•dby also commented that the City's Solid Waste Committee has put in a lot of work on the issue. Nowever•, Nordby pointed out that there are many changes taking place in the industry and if the City Council choses to go with one hauler•, it will prevent innovation by the various hauler•s that the changes in the industr~y will demand. Nor~dby reported that Dakota County has requir•ed all haulers as par~t of their licensing process to providing recycling service. Nordby reported that Dakota County has a very successful program. Nor•dby stated that the City's haulers have the capability of pr•oviding r•ecycling ser~vices, but a one-contractor system will r•ule out a lot of things that the City's hauler•s can do. Nordby also pointed out that it will take the choice of the homeowner• away, who will not have the oppor~tunity to chose the hauler they wish. Page -20- P1INUTES City Council November• 23, 1988 Organize~ Mordby asked the Council to give the haulers a chance to resolve the Collection problem, and pointed out that organized collection is always an option (Cont.) the City can go to. Tipler pointed out that it is necessary to haue volume-based fees no matter which system the City goes to. Scalze pointed out that the volume-based fees her• hauler• pr•ovides is not much less that the standard pick-up fee. Tipler• replied that as tipping fees become more expensive, the rates for standard pick-up will rise, putting a bigger gap between those fees and volume-based fees. Tipler reported that volume-based fees and r•ecycling fees will become a marketinq tool. Fahey asked if the hauler•s had the capability of providing weekly tr~ash pick-up as well as weekly r•ecycling pick-iap. Tipler commented that Dakota County just r•ecently became involved in recycling, and the Committee did not look at what Dakota County was doin~, because there was nothing to look at until a few months ago. Tipler stated that the Committee felt that licensing was not the wa,y to r~esolve the situation, since Little Canada woul~ then have to become a police force to make sure things were getting done. The Committee felt a contract would be more binding and workable solution. Ti~ler• stated that the concerns raised by ~lor~dby are not that far• aoar~t and felt that these items can be negotiated. Tipler• agreed that the hauler~s had the capabilities of pr~oviding the services the City needs, and the Committee is aware that fees will increase. However•, Tipler~ felt it important to get into negotiations now. Tipler r•eported that the hauler•s recently expresseA interest in forming a consortium, and the Committee would be willinn to work with them. Scalze expr•essed concer•n that a consortium will not save the citizens as much mone,y as competitive bidding would.. Tipler repliPd that a consortiiam would pr~esent one bid to the City and if the City is not satisfied. with it, the bid can be rejected. Tipler also oointed out that there ar~e three residential haulers in the City and if a consortium were for•med, these haulers could d.ivide the City into thr•ee systems. Ti~ler• pointed out that under this system the entire City could get the same services at the same cost. ~ordby replied that the strongest contract is bet~deen the homeowners and the haulers. If the homeowner does not like the service he or she is getting, the homeowner~ can release the contractor~ at any time. ~lor•db,y pointed out that the thr•ee haulers in the City have differ~ent percentages of the City's business. Dividing the City into three zones ma,y give a hauler~ more business than he curr•ently has, anc+ another hauler• less. Page-21- MINUTES City Council Nov. 23, 1988 Or•ganized Nordby asked that the Cit,y wait until the law is clarified until it 6ollection takes any action. Nor•dby pointed out that the City could for~ce the (Cont.) hauler•s into an anti-trust situation. Nordby pointed out that by for•ming a consortium, the City is asking a group of competitors to get together and agr•ee on price as well as r~outes. Nordby asked that the City wait until the court case is decided befor~e taking action. Nordby pointed out that the court case will pr•obably be decided within the next 90 days. Plor•dby asked that the City allow the haulers to pr~ovide both refuse removal ser•vice as well as r~ecycling service. If the homeowners don't like the ser•vice their~ hauler is providing, they have the option to change hauler•s. Fahey pointed out that currently the City has three trucks traveling down City str~eets causing wear and tear• on the str•eets as well as noise. Fahey felt this was the bi~gest r•eason for going to organized collection. Fahey asked if it would be feasible to r•ecognize a certain market share for each hauler• and bid the ser•vice on that basis. Tipler r~eplied that that was an idea, but pointed out that the hauler•s will have to get together on their• own and form a consortium. Nordby stated that the hauler~s ar•e afr•aid they will not be able to r~each the agreements necessary to form a consortium. Fahey pointed out that the Council could br•eak the City up into three districts and take separate bids on each district. The Public Works Superintendent pointed out that the City may get separate prices on each distr•ict. The Committee wanted to see all citizens in the City getting the same ser~vice at the same cost. The Superintendent pointed out that one contractor could. win the bid for a district and then could subcontract that district out to another contractor•. Scalze pointed out that there are people in the City without garbage pick-up who use the City's dumpster. Scalze asked how this was addr~essed, pointing out that the City's information on Cable TV states that no garbage is allowed. The Superintendent r~eplied that there ar•e a few people taking their garbage to the dumpsters. These are usually senior citizens with ver•y little garbage. Scalze pointed out that ther~e will be some people who will not want waste collection. The Superintendent agreed that there will be some people who will want to be excepted. However•, the haulers will still pr~ovide recycling Page -22- MI~IUTES City Council Nov. 23, 1988 Organized Collection (Cont.) service as well as collect yard. waste. Tipler pointed out that the vol~ame-based fee sched.ule will pr~ovide a low cost for the low volume user•. Tipler~ also pointed out that the homeowner who r~ecycles will get a lower• pr~ice than the homeowner who does not. Fahey asked who would bill the homeowner. Tipler r•eplied that the contractor will do the billing, unless there is a delinquent account, then the City could levy that amount against pr~operty taxes. Fahey pointed out that the City can adopt a resolution stating that it is considering adopting organized collection. Flfter adoption of such a resolution, the City must wait at least 90 days befor~e enacting such an or•dinance. This will give the Council additional time to study the issues. A hauler representing Gene's Disposal Service, reported that he pro~iides ser•vice for some apartment units within the City, and he was never notified of this public hearing. This hauler• felt that commer•cial and residential service should be separ~ate issues. Tipler pointed out that the hauler•s consider~ apar~tment or~ townhome service to be commercial. The Committee is considering this service as residential, and recommending that it be included with whatever action the Council takes on the service provided to sinple-family homes. Gene's Disposal felt that apartment owner•s should have a choice in the hauler~ they wish to contract with. Kevin Tr~itz, BFI, pointed out that changes in the industry are coming about at a rapid pace and felt that tipping fees are encouraging haulers to become involved. Tr•itz r•equested, that the City r~eview the Dakota County system before taking any action. Tipler stated that she could understand the hauler•s concern about apartments, however, pointed out that the Committee felt str•ongly that apartments should be includ.ed due to the lar•ge percentage of apar~tments in the City. Tipler• r~epor~ted that the Cit,y cannot meet its abatement goals without including apar•tments in some way. Fahey felt that at this point, the Council should go for•ward with adopting the r~esolution of intent. In the meantime, Fahey sug,qested that the haulers pr•ovide the Committee and Council with any mater•ials they woulc! like the City to review. Fahey stated that he would like to know more about White Bear•'s system which he has heard wor•ks fair•ly well. Blesener• pointed out that the resolution of intent does not necessarily Page -23- MINUTES City Council Nov. 23, 1988 Or~ganized the City is going to adopt organized collection. Collection (Cont.) Collova felt that the City Council needed mor~e comparables to consider. Blesener felt the City had an excellent committee, but felt there may be mor•e options for the Council to review. Blesener felt that additional infor~mation should be pr~ovided to the Council, and, if necessary, a wor~kshop should be held on the matter. The Superintendent stated that he would like to see the City place an organized collection system in ser•vice no later• than July 1, 1989, pointing out that the City is r•equired to have such a system by January 1, 1990. Bill Bruce asked if an organized collection system were adopted, who would enfor•ce i t. Fahey pointed out that ther•e will be enforcement necessary whether~ the City has 1 hauler or 2. Blesener stated that the only way to enforce such a system is by cost, if people do not participate they will pay more than those who do. Ther~e was no one else pr•esent wishing to comment. Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-516 - CLOSING THF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION WITHIN THE CITY The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. Ayes (5) Fahey, Scalze, LaValle, Collova, Blesener. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r•esolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 553. Mr. Blesener intr~oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-517 - ANNOUNCING THE CITY S I~ITENT TO ORGANIZE COLLECTION AND INVITING THE PARTICIPATION OF INTERESTED PERSONS IN PLA~INING AND ESTABLISHING TNE ORGANIZED COLLECTION SYSTEM The for~egoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. Ayes (5) Blesener, Scalze, Collova, LaValle, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 554. Fage -24- MINUTES City Council November 23, 1988 Or~ganized Council requested additional information on the subiect from both the Collection Solidb!ast? Committee and the hauler•s. Scalze r~equested information (Cont.) on what White Bear and Shor•eview are doing. The Council decided to put the matter on theaqenda for the December 28th meeting. If necessary, after• the December 28th meeting a workshop meeting could be scheduled. Nordby asked if a representative of the haulers could serve on the Solid Waste Committee. That was agreeable to the Council. Recess At this point in the meeting, 10:38 P.M., Council took a shor~t r•ecess. Little Collova pointed out that the agreement between the City and School Distr•ict Canada provides for• assessment of the School District for any improvements on School School Distr•ict property. Collova pointed out that a portion of the parking Agr•eement 1 ot impr~ovement proposed i s on Ci ty pr•oper•ty. Agenda Fahey infor•med the City Attorney that any parking lot improvement the School Item No. 16a District makes on City proper•ty should also be assessed against the School District. Fahey also pointed out that the agr~eement should be clear that the City has exclusive use of the storage area that the City will be paying for which is part of the School Addition. Fahey suggested that he wor•k with the City Attorney on the language to be contained in the agr•eement. Lindgren The City Attorney repor~ted that the questions raised by the City Clerk Auto License with regarc~ to the David. Lindgren Auto License do not apply in this instance. Agenda Item No. 16b Rezoning The City Planner• submitted to the Council a pr•oposed or•dinance enacting Or•d.inance the r•ecent r•ezonings approved by the City Council. It was noted that one of the properties included is the Frank Frattalone pr~oper~ty. Mr•. Agenda Frattalone has r•ecently made application to have his land rezoned back Item No. 17a to I-1. Council felt that the r~ezonings of all the properties should be enacted as previously appr~oved. Mr. Fahey introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: ORDINe~NCE M0. 310 - AN ORDINANCE AD9ENDING THE ZONING CODE THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA TO PROVIDE CHANGES IN ZONIPIG CLASSIFICATION The for•egoing or•dinance was duly seconded by Mr•. alesener. Ayes (5) Fahey, Blesener, Collova, LaValle, Scalze. Nays (Ql. Ordinance declared adopted. Page -75- MiNUTr_s City Council Plovember 23, 198II Car~la The City Planner repor~ted that the City staff is tr,ying to enfor•ce some Lane Code violations at 790 Carla Lane. There is a pick-up truck illegally parked. on the pr•operty, and the pr•oper•ty owner•s is driving over the Agenda curb to park this vehicle on the property. The Sheriff's Depar•tment has Item No. 12 been contacted and instructed to issue a citation to the propert,y owner~. Celebrate Sc,a.lze asked if the City should design an overlay control district in P1N 1990 the Little Canada Road a rea in conjunction with the Celebrate ~1innesota 1990 pr•ogram. Th ere has been thought given to special lighting and Agend.a landscaping along Little Canada Road.. {~ddi ti on The City Planner• stated that if the City has a specific idea or goal in mind, this would be one way to accomplish it. Other~wise, an over~lay control district could p r•esent the City with problems. Palmen Collova repor•ted that he has discussed the Palmen pr•operty with the Duilding Pr•opert,y Inspector who has met with f~r. Palmen and himself on the issue. Mr•: Palmen has indicated that he would like to leave his equipment on site in conjunction Agenda with the filling oper•ation he is undertaking in order to develop his Item ~lo. 21 property. Rlesener~ pointed out that the pr•operty is used for parking of construction equipment, and the landfill is a separate issue. Blesener suggested tha.t the City Planner• look into the matter~, and felt that the Or~dinance should be enforced within Mr•. Palmen's r•ights. Sign Blesener suggested that Section 910 D. 3. of the Sign Ordinance be reviewed Or•dinance feeling that por•tions of that Or•dinance ar•e meaningless and should be removed. Blesener~ requested that the City Planner• look at this Section. Agenda Addition Blesener also r•equestec!. that the Planner• look at the Sign Or•dinance in relation to the Gardner Bros. sign and give the Council his opinion. Final The City Engineer• submitted a letter• dated November 15, 1988 r•ecommending Payment that final payment be made to Qiatdoor• Design for• completian of Imp. No. Imp. No. 88-19, S,ylvan Str•eet sborm sewer•. 88-19 Mr•s. Scalze intr•oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: Agend.a Item No. 15a RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-518 - APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT IN TFIE A~~OUNT OF $7,724.00 TO OUTDOOR DESIGN FOR IMP. N0. 88-19 0~1 THE RECOMMED;DATION OF THE CITY E~IGINEER The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr~. Fahe.y. ~yes (5) Scalze, Fahey, Qlesener, LaValle, Collova. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r•esolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 555. Page -26- MINUTES City Council Nov. 23, 1988 Economic Fahey reported that the next Economic Development Commiss~°Colbytongthell Development be scheduled after the City r•eceives the report from Yaggy Commission Country Drive area. Agenda Item No. 18 6~later Tower Agenda Item No. 20 Celebrate P9N 1990 (Cont.) Blesener• r~epor~ted that the Public Works Super•intendent has suggested that the City begin planning for r~epairs to the City's water tower once it determines how the repairs will be paid for. Blesener• also reported that the St. Paul Water• Board has appr•oved the new contract with the City a~hich includes giving the City a r•ebate on water r~ates charged back to January of 1986. alesener• pointed out that this rebate will pay for• a good share of the water tower repairs. Scalze pointed out that it is necessary for the City to schedule a public hearing on the Celebrate MN 1990 program since any grants the City might r~eceive would be 1 to 3 matching gr•ants. The public hearing would be necessary to take input on the City's expenditure of furYds. Scalze reported that Bill Sanders would like to make a pr~esentation at the De~~leeCanada RoadCar•eaethat9could~benundertakep~aslpa~t ofptheeCelebratehe MN 1990 grant program. Council discussed whether the grant money should be tied to the Little Canada Road ar~ea or the Center•ville Road Ar•ea Park, with some Council members feeling that the par•k should be the fir•st prior•ity. P4rs. Scalze introudced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIOPJ N0. 88-11-519 - CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEP4BER 14, 1988 TO CONSIDER THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR CELEf3RATE MINNESOTA 1990 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. Ayes (5) Scalze, Collova, Blesener, Fahey, LaValle. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r~esolution appears in Resolution Book Mo. 20, Page 556. Plowing Scalze reported that since the last Park Commission meeting at which Paths In a decision was made not to plow paths in City par•ks this winter~, the Parks City has received several requests to do so. Scalze reported that she discussed this with Ken Wehrle, the Par~k Commission Chairman, and it was their feeling that the path from Noel Dr•ive west into Spooner• Park should be plowed. Scalze r•eported that she would discuss this with the Public Works Super•intendent. Page -27- P1I MUTES City Council Nov. 23, 1988 Gambling Mr•. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Permit Little Canada RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-520 - APPROVIPJG THE Rec. Assoc. GAMBLI~lG PERMIT SUBPIITTED [3Y THE LITTLE CANADA RECREATION ASSOCIATION FOR PULL-TABS TO BE Agenda SOLD AT THE FIRE HALL 0~1 JANUARY lh APJD 15, Item Mo. 23a 1989 AND IdAIVIMG THE CITY'S 60-~AY REVIEW PROVISION The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by P1r. Blesener•. Ayes (5) LaValle, Blesener, Scalze, Collova, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. ~ This resolution appears in Resolution Book Ido. 20, Page 557. Upgr•ade Jean Podominick submitted a letter• to the City dated November 17, 1988 of Computer~ r~ecommending an upgradeof the City's computer software. The cost of Software this upgrade is $1,575.00. Aaenda Mr~. LaValle intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: Item Plo. 23b RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-521 - APPROVING THE UPGRADING OF THE CITY S COMPUTER SOFTI+~ARE AS RECOP9MENDED BY JEAN PODOMI~IICK The foregoing r•esolution was duly seconc!ed by Mr. f3lesener. Ayes (5) LaValle, Blesener, Collova, Fahey, Scalze. ~lays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 558. Vouchers Mr. LaValle intr~oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: Agenda RESOLUTIO~I N0. 88-11-522 - APPROVING Item No. 23c TNE VOUCHERS The for•egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. Ayes (5) LaValle, Blesener, Collova, Fahey, Scalze. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r~esolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 559. Dispute Fahey r~epor~ted that the Dispute Resolution Center has again contacted the Resolution City regar•ding financial suppor~t. 7her~e was no motion by the Council to Center r•econsider the Council's pr•evious action on this r•equest. Page -28- MINUTES City Council ~lov. 27, 1988 Facilitator Scalze r•epor~ted that she and Blesener• have been working with Don Salver•da on a proposal for a facilitation session. Mr. Salver•da feels that he can Agenda put together a session that will fit the Council's needs. Suggested dates Addition for the session are February 4th or Febr•uary 18th. Blesener• reported that it was suggested that the Chair•men of the Planning Commission and Par~k Commission also be invited to the session, along with member•s of City Staff and the Recreation Director. Closed The City Attorney requested that the Council hold a closed session to Session discuss pending litigation in the matter of Keane versus the City. Agenda Mr~. Fahey intr•oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Addition RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-523 - AUTHORIZING THE COUNCIL TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE KEANE LITIGATION AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by P9r~. Blesener•. Ayes (5) Fahey, Blesener, Scalze, Collova, LaValle. Nays (O1. Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 560. Adjourn Mr•. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Agenda RESOLUTION N0. 88-11-524 - ADJOURNING Item No. 24 The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. Ayes (5) Fahey, Scalze, LaValle, Blesener, Collova. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 561. There being no fur~ther• business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted, , ,~ ~ t ~, ~.,;~..r ~ 1,'~e' r , r .L;'l. Kathy Gt:anzer Recording Secretary Page -29-