Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-89 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL LITTL~ CANADA, MINNESOTA March 22, 1989 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Little Canada, Minnesota was held on the 22nd day of March, 1989, in tkie Council Chambers of the City Cexiter located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Agenda Mayor Michael Fahey chaired the meeting and called it to Item No. i order at 7:30 p.m. and the following member s of the Council were present at roll call. Agenda MEMBERS PR~S~ NT: Mayor Mr. Michael Fahey Item No. 2 Councilwoman Mrs. Beverly Scalze Councilman Mr. Rick Collova Councilman Mr. James LaValle Councilman Mr. William Blesener ALSO PRESENT: City Clerk Mr. Joseph Chlebeck Consulting Engineer Mr. Donald Carley City ~~torney Mr. Thomas Sweeney Planner Mr. Steve Grittman Recording Secretary Mrs. Marcia Lan~is Minutes Mrs. Scalze i ntroduced the followizig resolu tion an~ moved its adoption: Agenda R~SOLUTION N0. 89-3-107 - APPROVING THL 'NI~RCH 8 Item No. 3 WORKSHOP AND THE MINUTES OP THE MARCH 22, 190) REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AS SUBMITTED The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. Ayes (5) Blesener, Collova, Fahey, LaValle, Scalze. Nays (0) Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 109. Announce- M-r. Fahey announced the Little Canada "Back to the 50's" ments fundraiser will be held Saturday, April l, from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. in the St. John Gym. Tickets will be $5 and are Agenda available from the City Staff or call Bev Scalze or Linda Item No. 4 Fahey at 4 84-3261. There will be a contest open to a11 elementary students in Little Canada, except sons and daughters of City Couricil and Planning Commission members, to name the new park. Deadline for ent•ry will be 4:30 p.m., March 31. Prize wi11 be $100. No further announcements. Page -1- Public Mr. Fahey stated there are a number of public hearing items. Hearings We will proceed as follows: The Council wi11 ask any questions they have of the applicants, having read the information previously put together by the staff. After hearing from the applicant, will hear from the general public that wishes to speak for or against the proposal. We will close the hearing or continue as appropriate. ~rnprovement Mr. Fahey announced the first item which is Improvement 89-2 89-2 WaLer Water Connection. County Road C from Rice Street and Spruce Connection Street. Agenda Mr. Chlebeck stated on County Road C across black top. Item No. 5 No one appeared on behalf of the 89-2 Water Connection. There would be a$7,764 assessment for this project. Mrs. Scalze inquired who would pay for this; who would be assessed. Mr. Carley stated first the county would overlay the road. When you overlay a road you can't dig into it for five years. This is a connection that would dupe the water main. He assumed the Sherman Boosalis Development would pay. Mrs. Scalze stated she hasn't heard anything about this development happening. If they don't develop, would the assessment sit there. Mr. Carley stated it would be levied against the Sherman Boosalis property. Mrs. Scalze clarified it would be ttie property fronting Rice Street. Mr. Chlebeck stated the three property owners are: George and Joan Krienke, ROI Financial Group and Ruth Steneroden. Mr. Fahey asked if there were any questions from the public. He then moved to close the hearing. Mr. LaValle seconded. Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-108 - APPROVING IMPROVEMENT 89-2 WATER CONN~CTION GOING ACROSS COUNTY ROAD C The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. LaValle. Ayes (5) Blesener, LaVa11e, Fahey, Collova, Scalze. Nays (0) Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 110. Paye -2- 3020 Mr. Fahey siated this is a request for conditional use permit Trailer to construct a joint use utility, storage and storm shelter Park - building. TYie Planning Commission approved 6 to 0 the condi- Conditional tional use permit for the 3020 Mobile Home Park's storage Use Permit building provided they met the required set~acks. Agend'a Mr. Pau1 Anderson of 3020 Mobile Home Court appeared as Item No. 6 owner. Mrs. Scalze commented she was confused since the Planning Commission approved subject to required setbacks. Mr. Anderson stated there was no need for a variance beyond the 6 feet. Mr. Fahey inquired of Mr. Anderson the difference between this request and the previous one that was turned down. Mr. Anderson stated the two reasons it was turned down was it was over the city sewer and was located too near the railroad lines requiring a variance from the 10 feet. Mr. Blesener also stated it was too close to an existing trailer. Mrs. Scalze stated she thought the Council indicated we would rather he improve the existing garage rather than build another building. Mr. Blesener wanted to know if this was to be a storm shelter. Mr. Anderson didn't know if it would come to that. Mrs. Scalze inquired as to the intent of use for a storm shelter for proposal. Mr. Anderson stated the basement is currently being used as a storm shelter and the inspector found it met al1 code requirements except handicapped accessibility. After the Safety Committee meeting the handicapped access was more or less waived and the Ramsey County garage would be used. Mrs. Scalze stated that recommendation has not been seen yet. The Council decides on the evacuation recommendation. Mr. Chlebeck stated approval had been given to use the basement and the Kamsey County garage. No further comments or questions. Mr. Blesener moved to close the hearing on 3020 Trailer Park Conditional Use Permit. Mrs. Scalze seconded. Mr. LaVa11e introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Page -3- 3020 R~SOLUTION N0. 89-3-109 - APPROVING TH~ CONDITIONAL T~ailer USE P~RMIT OF 3020 TRAILER PARK WITH THE RECOMMENDA- Pa~k TION FROM THE PLANN~RS (Cont) The foregoixig resolution was duly secorided by Mr. Blesener. Ayes (5) LaValle, Blesener, Collova, Fahey, Scalze . Nays (0). Reso lution declared adopted. 'Phis resolution appears in Resolution Boole No. 21, page 112. FinaServe Mr. Fahey stated this matter was considered by the Planning Sigri Height Commission who voted 4 to 2 to a pprove tYle sign variance Variance and also recommended by a 6 to 0 vote that the Council amend and apply freeway frontage z ones to allow h igher signs and Agenda different sign requirements with regard to locations such Item No. 7 as the Fina Station adjacent to Itighway 36. At this time the Council was presented a lengthy document by Mr. Pat Wilcox, attorney for Fina Oil and Chemical Co. Mr. Fahey introduced Mr. Wilcox to present the documents. Mr. Wilcox state~ the documents presented to the Council were to be entered into record. Ten of tYiem are copies of prior City Planning reports regarding previous denial of request by Fina for a 30 foot sign. Some pertain to the ConnCo variance and also the Union 76 variance. Also included are four to five photographs of various stations being talked about; a drawing of what Pina proposes, which is a blue sign of the same height but with two poles rather than foury and a copy of the current sign. There is also a copy of the Warranty Deed (Exhibit 10) whereby Mobi1 Oi1 conveys tYie Union 76 station at Little Canada Road and 35L to Mobil Oil. TYiere is also an Affidavit from Suburban Lighting (#13) explaining the structural modifications to the former Mobi1 Station once it became Union 76. Exhibit 18 was not presented to the Planning Commission. It shows the number of pylon signs in the City which exceed the specified height. It shows 12 to 14 signs over the specified height. He apologized the heights were not completely accurate but their best estimates. One additional item Mr. Wilcox called to the Council's attention is from a previous letter to tPie Planning Commissiori dated February 28 where he erroneously stated the taller of the pylon signs over the Union 76 station is 62 feet. His error, it is 50 feet. This was called to the Planning Commission's attention and he also wanted the Council to know. Mr. Blesener asked how many signs were erected since the sign ordinance went into effect. Mr. Wilcox could not te11 for a fact but ConnCo sign subject to the 1987 "ConnCo Variance" and the Union 76 sign. Page -4- FinaServe Mr. Blesener stated tliose were changea but not constructed. Sign Height They cvere there. Variance (Cont) Mr. Wilcox asked they refer to Phi1 Larson's Affidavit. What actually happened was when Mobil there tney had a 23' rotating sign. They didn't just change tkie Mobi1 siyn to Union 76, they put a whole new pole in. There was a 62' existing pylon sign tYiat had to structurally be cut down and tkie pole modified to accommodate tYie different sign (can) that Union 76 put up. Virtually did rebuild or build those two signs. Mrs. Scalze stated this a separate code. Fina tore dowii and rebuilt whereas Uriical business did not change hands. Tkie ownership remained the same, use was the same. The francYiise changed. The sign was part of the business that remained the same. Mr. Wilcox statecl this was a legal conveyance of property from Mobi1 to Union. Mrs. Scalze stated it was a trade. The business use remained the same and the franchise owner remained the same. Mi. Wilcox stated the franctiise owner remained the same. Fina hasn't ckianged business either. Mrs. Scalze stated Fina not under that portion of the code. Objeciion is where business is substantially changed arid building removed. Separate part of code; we're applying ciifferent parts of code; different clauses. Mr. Fatiey stated he didn't think a different clause and that Couticil gave tYie change to Mobil from 76 a variance. Mrs. Scalze disagreed and that Mr. Fahey's motion at the time was that a variance was not needed since there was no change. Mr. Blesener stated the suggescion of the Mayor a variance not required. One was requested. We figured it was a hard- ship due to fact, not to his doing, and that he needed new signs. Mayor decided we didn't need a variance. Furtkier discussion regarding transfer of owxierskiip. Problem deciptiering code 903.110-D - Property Ownership Change. Went on property not ownership change or franchise change. M-r. Faliey stated Pina the otily filling station in the City not allowed to have a higher sigri including competitors across Highway 36 in Maplewood. We are being unreasonak~le and technical regarding applicatioii of our codes and i:Yiat portion of code. . . Paye -5- FinaServe Mrs. Scalze stated that's the key - if code not right, we Sign Height should look at. Variance (Cont) Mr. Blesener stated the planner has gone through twice. Has given us comparison codes - once for Slumberland sign where variance not granted on height, and again on this. Our sign ordinances are quite liberal. Doesn't recall other areas having freeway exceptions. Mr. Grittman stated very few had those kind of exemptions. Asked criteria on variances; how applied differences in signs. Few made that kind of distinction. Doesn't know Maplewood situation but would guess signs there quite awhile. Maplewood's ordinances are new like Little Canada's and are non-conforming like ours. Mrs. Scalze stated Slumberland was turned down for different sign and 35L/694 major freeway. Mr. Fahey feels this is an undue hardship that they must take down sign and not rebuild at the same heigYit when going from a 4-pole to a 2-pole sign. Feels it would clean up the area. It is a twist of the code but they are rebuilding the same sign. Mrs. Scalze stated should change the code not just give a variance. If the code too restrictive, should change the code. Mr. Fahey stated the code is loose on the term "hardship." Situation should be compared to other competitors similarly situated along the freeway and Lhen rationalize. Mrs. Scalze stated in the case of ConnCo they were located below the freeway and a topographical hardship. Mr. Wilcox stated Fina being penalized. They have spent lots of money to refu-rbish the station based on past precedence of city. They knew about Union 76 and ConnCo variances and don't feel Fina any difierent than Union 76. Our due process of protection is being trampled on. Mrs. Scalze stated that maybe the Council should go back to Union 76 and admit we erred and that they should take down tkie sign. Try to apply ordinances equally across the board. Mr. Wilcox feels there is practical reality here. ~ven the existing code doesn't recognize a freeway frontage zone, which a week ago the Planning Commission unanimously recom- mended to you that you set one up. Mr. Blesener stated that was a comment one member made with no discussion and not much thought given. Page -6- FinaServe Mr. Wilcox stated Mr. Grittrnan's report of last summer stated Sign Height "Precedence may have been established by Union 76." Mayor Variance Fahey also so stated. Law is existant on precedence. (Cont) Mr. Grittman replied the siyn ordinance varies by size of building. The highest pvssible is 25' with additional 5'. Mr. Fahey stated Roseville has a rnaximum height of 45'. Our Planning Commission is recommending we change the sign ordinance. Maplewood is up to 50'; Vaclnais Aeights is 25' determined by formula; Eden Prairie is not listed. Mr. Wilcox suggested when a firm applying for a building permit they be informed of the sign heighi. Mrs. Scalze inquired wYien ihey a~plied. Mr. Grittman stated the end of 1987 made the first contact. They were notified of sign requirements at that time. Mr. LaValle stated Fina is located at the entrance to the City. They are wanting to erect a new sign, same height, a new image. The present siqn is "very tacky." Mr. Fahey stated he ttiought the sign ordinance should be changeci to a11ow for a higher height for properties located immediately adjacent to freeways in our city. If there is a willingness to explore this, we should continue the hearing and take a look at it. Mr. Blesener stated he would not vote for a variance. Feels we are talking different issues. If a variance is voted here, L-he sign ordinace might as well be thrown out. He would rather loolc at the ordinance; not get out of hasid. Can't justify a variance. b1r. Fahey suggested the public Yiearing be closed and action be ~abled on the variance and the subject be discussed at a later date. He then moved to close the hearing. Mrs. Scalze seconded. Mr. Fahey gave P~ir. Wilcox the opportunity for any closing comments. Mr. Wilcox restated that the letter to the Planning Com- mission and exhibits are to be part of the minutes and Exhibits 1- 18 are also part of the record. He furtYier commented 1) Fina was being penalized for spending money to remodel; 2) can conceive legal distinction between Fina request anc~ what Union 76 did. Fina doesn't want a 40' sign, only a little 30~ S1CJY1 which could even be knocked down a few feet if that's wkiat it takes. How different is this reqixest from ConnCo's? He firmly believes that Page -7- FinaServe Fina has met a11 requirements for a variance. Rights being Sign Height denied. Fee1s should think over one more time. Variance (Cont) Mr. Fahey asked for any comments from the floor. Gentleman asked if Uni rather than Union Oil. individual rather than whose name was it in? be sued? Union 76 had selves so the property ~n sign in name of Roger Mi11er, lessee, This is unusual for sign to be in franchise name. While Mobil Station If the sign were to fa11, who would Roger Miller apply rather than them- would not have to be transferred. Another comment from the floor stated that needs are different when traveling the freeway. Often look for a gas station or restaurant but not a place to shop. Mr. Blesener restated that he wouldn't vote for a variance. He would like to sit down and discuss and come to a decision so it wouldn't have to be discussed at every meeting when a request came in. Wants no more hassles. Vote on closing hearing - Ayes 5- 0 Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOliUTION N0. II9-3-110 - APPROVING Vd~ GRANT FINA SIGN ORDINANCE ON BASIS OF PRECEDENCE LSTABLISHED IN THE CONNCO, MOBIL/UNION 76 CASES AND HARDSHIPS EVIDENT IN THIS CASE IN COMPARISON TO ACTIONS TAKEN BY COUNCIL ON THOSE CASES The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. LaValle. Ayes (3) Fahey, LaValle, Collova. Nays (2) Scalze, Blesener. Resolution denied. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 116. Mr. Fakiey stated the variance denied again. A workshop on signs is needed. Schedule for the first meeting in April (regular meeting). Prior to this meeting need to find out what other cities are doing, tlie height of a sign to the buildinq, location adjacent to freeway area. Planner wi11 get the report to Council members for Agenda. KVBM Mr. Fahey stated the next item on the Agenda, KVBM Television Television has been stricken from the Agenda by the applicant. Agenda Gentleman from the audience requested more information. Item No. 8 Mr. Fahey highlighted stage tower at and why stricken. A picture was shown of the proposed tower comparing it to other towers of the world. The site being looked at is on Country Drive across from the city garage; kiowever, the Page -8- KVBM property is subject to state deed restriction. The tower ielevision attorney stated the State would noi approve the site for (Cont) the transmission tower. Little Canada would have to purchase the land and that would delay the plans six months. They are now looking at other sites, including Roseville, keeping their options open. Tauled until further contact with us. Mr. Collova stated the proposed tower is about the same height as the Shoreview tower but designed different so can be built on smaller property. Mr. Fakiey stated Little Canada would get a use fee of $50,000, $75,000 to $100,000 per year going into the City generating more money to the cii.y than a buildirig on an equivalent piece of property. Byron Kucher, 303 E. Brooks I~ve., statecl his otie major concern was that it would be located betweexi major trans- mission towers and ihe majority of Little Canada. What would be the effect on TV and will everyone have to kiook up to cable and all tvs witPiin their home in order to get good reception. Mr. Blesener stated that theoretically they shoul~l not be aifected but agrees a concern. This will have to be looked into further if the tower becomes a reality. Mr. Kucher stated another concern is the liabilicy to the city. Mr. Blesener stated this is another area having to be worked out. Nlr. Kuchei stated that basically he is not in favor of the tower being located in Little Canada. He feels it won't enYiance liittle Canada, is risky and would change i:he skyline. Mr. Fahey suggested we get some outside advice, especially concerned about impact of developers building in area and having to look at the tower. Mr. Grittman will research before next meeting. He will also call Washington to get opinion. Mondor/ Mr. Fahey introducecl the Mondor/bScNar,lara Property PUD McNamara Continuaiion of Hearing. There is a motion from the Planning Property Cornmission to authorize the PUD rezoning for the McNamara PUD and Mondor properties. Council does have VETO power. Continuation Mr. McNamara appeared on his own behalf. Agenda Item No. 10 Mi. McNamara stated the Planning Commission gave some recommesidations to contact Mondors to discourage PUD. f3e (McNamara) wants to purchase the property. Conoco wants Page -9- Mondor/ to purchase the property for $100,000. By the time he McNamara paid Mondors $55,000, paid off his own mortgage of $35,000 Property ana paid $10,000 real estate commission, he would not realize (Cont) a profit. Mr. Fahey stated McNamara was taking a risk in buying the property. The Council didn't say 5 to 10 feet short. That is a bad corner and the driveway should not be located near the corner. The two properties should be combined as a nice parcel and developed as a good piece of property. Mr. Blesener stated he doesn't feel a gas station/convenience store a good use for that corner. Mrs. Scalze suggested a tax increment financing person should look at the property with Mr. McNamara. Mr. Fahey stated he would prefer supporting a better buidling than a convenience store/gas station. Have talked to McNamara before that Council willing to work with him. Mr. McNamara stated he would be very willing to talk to people. Feels PUD too restrictive; he is not a planner or developer. Mr. Grittner stated would have to look at rezoning a larger parcel PUD. That way would gain more control of what goes in space. Mr. Fahey stated PUD does not restrict what can be built within B-3 area. It only insures we have handle on what goes in. Would like to see higher valuation building in that area than a gas station. Mr. McNamara asked if this was being tabled until further discussion with Planner. Mr. Fahey stated his idea would be to zone to PUD; would be willing to work with McNamara through tax increment financing but doesn't want station on piece of property. Realtor Jim Mugs Nardini reiterated past proceeding with Mondor's thought they would realize $86,000. Mr. Blesener stated the deal fell through because the original developer didn't have the money. Realtor stated that office space not necessarily the best use of land. The two properties together are the only way the land is valuable. If Conoco were to change the design, say a mini strip mall and change the driveway, would the Council still be adverse to a gas station? Mr. Fahey replied they'd be hard pressed to say no. Page -10- Mondor/ Mrs. Scalze agreea it would be a better tax return than McNamara a small gas stalion. Property (Cont) Mr. Fahey introduced the followirig resolution and moved its acloptioxi: RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-11i - APPROVING CONTINUANCE OF MONDOR/MCNAMARA PROPERTY CONTINUATION UNTIL 2ND MEETING IN APRIL Ttie foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. Ayes (5) Blesener, Collova, Fahey, LaValle, Scalze. Nays (0) Resolution declared adopi:ed. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 22, page 113. At this time there was a 5 minute recess. ~ng Mr. Eng stated the letter as promised from either Dwayne Drainage McCarty or tkie County Engineer regarding his draining problem Matter did not arrive. Ai this time he has four buyers for the property. The problem is at the front of the Yiouse not Agenda the lakeside. He wants to know something will be done so Item No. 9 the property ca n be sold. Mr. Carley stated they talked about piping the ditch in front of the house similar to Nardini's (catch basin). This will not talce house out of flood plain. Mr. LaVa11e asked about fill across tlie road. Mr. Carley stated iL- is the opinion of ihe staff that the property flows naturally across the road to the 1ake. When it fills and backs up, it stands for a few days. Mr. Eny~ wish is to kiave ttie city/county work together to resolve the problem so the property can be sold. `1'ext This item is tabled until next meeting. Amendment Ordinance 311 Agenda Item No. li Section 6 Mr. Fahey stated recommend to proposed PUD by Planning PUD Area Coramission. Would like to support proposed PUD k~ut not Zoning witYi undeistanding put into PUD so looser standards than I-1. Agenda Item IQo. 12 Mrs. Scalze stated was to be a compromise. Mr. Bob DeBace from the floor stated as he understood would like to get some of i:he businesses upgraded. Page -11- Section 6 Concerned stay based as I-1 but allow to go PUD. We PUD Area wouldn't lose any basis. Zoning (Cont) Mr. Grittman stated it i s o ur understanding PUD would control any development in the area and if site conditions warrant it, requirement for particular development could be as loose as existing I-1 standards but iF site conditions warrant, may be more str ict - closer to IP requirements. Mr. Blesener: In other words, basis of what land would allow. Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: R~SOLUTION N0. ~9-3-112 - APPROVAL OF SECTION 6 PUD REZONING The foregoing resolution was duly seconded. Ayes (5) Blesener, Fahey, Collova, liaValle, Scalze. Nays (0) Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 1.19. This concludes Old Business. Engineer - Mr. Fahey instructed the engineer to explain in 25 words Removal of or less what Removal of Sunset Provision is. Sunset Provision Mr. Carley stated take from us, give somewhere e1se. Not quite 10%. Agenda Item No. 13 Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-113 - APPROVB THE SIGNING OF RESOLUTION 1989-1 REGARDING FUNDING POR SUNS~T CLAUS~ ON STATE AiDE FOR ROADS The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. LaVa11e. Ayes (5) Blesener, Fahey, LaValle, Collova, Scalze. Nays (0) Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 119. Mr. Fahey stated that at the next meeting the North Star Estates storm shelter issue is coming up. It is important to have the costs of construction of the site. Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-114 - MOVE ENGIN~ER BE AUTHORIZED TO DO WHAT'S NECESSARY TO GIVE COUNCIL INFORMATION TO CONSTRUCT FACILITY FOR Page -12- Engineer 150 OR MORE PEOPLE, TO CORRECT SOILS, ~TC. (Cont) PLANNER SHOULD RLVIEW REPORTS AND LOOK TO SEE IF COSTS WE'RE BEING TOLD ARE REASONABLE. WANT TO KNOW WAAT SOIL CORR~CTION NE~DED TO MAKE SUFFICIENT. 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. 21, Page 119. Mrs. Scalze added we cvant to know the least amount of soil correction needed to put in the building. We sYiould loolc at wYiat other cities have done. Mr. Fahey stated we already have APEC and owners opinion but would like Mr. Chlebeck to look into further. Attorney Mr. LaValle introduced tkie following resolution and moved its adoption: Agenda Item No. 14 RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-115 - APPROVE THE SCHOOL AGRLEMENT TYie foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. Ayes (5) liaValle, Scalze, Collova, Fahey, Blesener. Nays (0) Resolution aeclared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 120. Mr. Faliey highlighted a few of the areas of the agreement: The District agrees to pay such special assessments levied over a ten-year period. Tkiis can be modified. Agreed up to $75,000. Section 5A states: When the Gymnasium Addition is used for meetings or other public gatherings which require the use of chairs and tables, the City wi11 also be responsible for set up and pick up before and after such activities. With weelcend use, clean up is reasonable. Section 6 states: The City and the District shall each designate a person charged with tYie responsibility of sche- auling and coordinating the use of tkie Gymnasium Addition so that such facilities may be made available by the District to others when not in use by the City. City has right of first use but available to others iL not in use by City. Tkiere is also a termination clause in the agreement. Discussions real candid; have good repoire. Page -13- Attorney Mr. Carley stated construction would be begin soon as the (Cont) Building Permit was being acquired March 27. Mr. Fahey stated would like assessed over 10 years rather than a longer time (12-15 years) as they are requesting. Mr. Chlebeck stated all assessments against them at their cost and has no impact on the City. He wi11 talk to the School Administration. Mr. Sweeney stated the City was presented with a request to execute a Quit C1aim Deed on property on Country Drive. Same legal has already been taken care of. Request we verify same description. He authorizes we take care of the Quit Claim Deed on behalf of the City and return to seller (Burton and Larson). The City has no interest in this property. Mr. LaVa11e introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-116 - APPROVE EXECUTION Or QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR PROPERTY ON COUNTRY DRIVE The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. Ayes (5) LaValle, Collova, Blesener, Scalze, Fahey. Nays (0) Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 121. Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RLSOLUTION N0. 89-3-117 - APPROVING THE SHORT FORM LEASE ON SCHOOL PROPERTY WITH THE CITY REQUIRING THE MAYOR'S AND CITY CLERK'S SIGNATURE The foregoing resolution was duly seconded. Ayes (5) Blesener, Fahey, Collova, Scalze, LaValle. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 121. Mr. Blesener had a question for Mr. Sweeney regarding an employee's request for a private hearing with the Mayor and Council. What is proper procedure. Mr. Sweeney stated Section 209.200, or Suspension. Person has ten days request. He further cited the Data Minnesota Supreme Court decision. the matter is it would have to be a closed meeting, with the conclusion sub. b(1) - Dismissal to respond or make Practice Act and the Phe long and sho-rt of combination open and public. Page -i4- Attorney Mr. Fahey stated he endorsed Roger's action and requests (Cont) Mr. Sweeney write Mr. Drake a letter explaining a public vs. private hearing. Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: R~SOLUTION N0. 89-3-118 - APPROVE WE RECEIVE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS SUP~RINTENDENT AND APPROVE HIS RECOMMENDATION, WITH ATTORNEY NOTIFYING TH~ EMPLOYEE IN WRITING REGARDING A PUBLIC VS. PRIVAT~ HEARING The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. Ayes (5) Scalze, Blesener, Fahey, LaVa11e, Collova. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 122. Planner Mr. Grittman's only comments were regarding a list of violations at the landscape company located on Country Drive. Agenda This list will be sent to the company. Item No. 15 Mr. Collova asked Mr. Grittman what is being done regarding junk cars. Mr. Grittman stated there is a section in the Zoning Code covering the issue. The Sheriff and tYie Court is now aware of this. Economic The request for an Attorney's Office on Viking Drive was Development presented. Agenda Mr. Blesener stated this is not what we are looking for, Item No. 16 that TIF requirements are not met. Mr. Fahey requested Mr. Chlebeck notify the party TIF requirements not being met. Public Safety No report. Agenda Item No. 17 Utility Mr. Blesener suggests the sewer rate be left at $29 per quarter. He also suggests the water rate be left the same. Agenda It is slightly higher than needed but we need to pay for Item No. lII the water tower fixing this summer. Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOliUTION N0. 89-3-119 - APPROVE RETAINING THE WATER AND SEWER RATES OF 1988 IN 1989 Page -15- Utility The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. (Cont) Ayes (5) Blesener, Collova, Scalze, LaValle, Fahey. IJays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 122. NIr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved i~s adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-1'l0 - APPROVING THE uALE OF THE 1978 GMC PICKUP The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Fahey. Ayes (5) Blesener, Fahey, Collova, liaValle, Scalze. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 123. Mr. Blesener stated the Sheriff's Department is requesting No Parking sigris be placed on Viking Drive by the Fina Statiori roughly from St. Jude to Fina. Roger suggested the north side of the street since tkie~e is a curb there. On the south side can park off the road. Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: R~SOliUTION N0. 89-3-121 - AUTIIORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTM~NT TO PLACE NO PARKING SIGNS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VIKING DRIVE AT APPROXIMATELY TA~ ENTRANCE TO ST. JUDE'S TO APPROXIMATELY THE ENTRANCE TO THE FIN11 STATION OR LQHATEV~R THLY MAY SE~ AS CORREC'P Mr. LaValle stated this will create a problem by placing on the north side versus tYie south. Will create a safety problem. Mr. Blesener then amended his resolution to read as follows: AU'1'HORIZE TH~ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO PLACE THE NO PARKING SIGNS ON EITHLR TH~ NORTH OR SOUTH SIDE OF VTKING DRIVE AFTER DISCUSSING WITH TH~ SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT `L"he foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. LaValle. Ayes (5) Blesener, Fahey, LaValle, Scalze, Collova. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. TYiis resolutioxi appears in Resolution Boolc No. 21, page 123. Mr. Blesenei~ requested Mr. Chlebeck to put City Hall on the next meeting Agenc~a. Mr. Blesener stated that regarding the Utility Billing Proqram, we will wait for furtYier information. Page -16- Utility Mr. Blesener announced there would be a League of Women (Cont) Voter's meeting on March 30. The Council wi11 have a dinner conflict that night. Mr. Chlebeck is requested to write a gracious letter with apologies and request any input they might have. Building and Mr. Collova asked the Mayor if fire trucks have control Zoning of signal changes. Mr. Pahey stated this is in effect. Agenda Item No. 19 Mr. Carley stated additional soil boring and geotechnical engineerixig report services are being requested by Braun Engineering for Ryan Drive, Ryan Lane and Spruce Street. The estimated additional costs for these services is $1650. Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: R~SOLUTION N0. 89-3-].22 - APPROVING BRAUN ENGINEERING ADDITIONAL MONEY TO CONTINUE THE SOIL BORING. The foregoing resolution was duly seconded. Ayes (5) Blesener, Collova, LaVa11e, Scalze, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolutuion Book No. 21, page 124. Mr. Blesener stated the Public Works Supervisor position had 35 applicants. Ae pulled out ten possibles. The Council should review. Joe, John and himself should screen and pick 3 to 4 and the full Council do the final hiring. The names should be returned to Blesener by Friday night. Mr. Collova agreed to attend the Refuse Hauler's meeting on April 3 at 2:30 p.m. Parks and Mrs. Scalze stated there would be a meeting on March 29 Recreation at 7:30 p.m. regarding Celebrate Minnesota 1990. Agenda Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved Item No. 20 its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-123 - AUTHORIZING BILli SANDERS TO BEGIN PREPARATION OF BID PACKAGES FOR CELEBRATE MINNESOTA 1990 PROJECT The foregoing resolution was duly seconded. Ayes (5) Scalze, Collova, Fahey, LaVa11e, Blesener. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 124. Page -17- Parks and Nlrs. Scalze commented this wi11 include landscaping, banners, Recreation ligYitiny, etc. and must be done in 1989. (Cont) Mrs. Scalze stated there should be a change made to Resolution 89-3-103. R~SOLUTION N0. 89-3-103 - CHANGE ON~ GKANT APPLSCIITION FROM PLAY AREA TO TRAIL EXPANSION AND MISCELLAN~OUS ~XPENSES The foregoing corrected resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. Ayes (5) Scalze, Collova, Fahey, LaVa11e, Blesener. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Boolc No. 21, page 125. Adminis- Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved tration its adoption: Agenda RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-124 APPROVING Item No. 21 Mft. LAVALLE AND THE CITY CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE AND GET QUOTATIONS ON FAX MACHINE TO B~ PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AT N~XT ME~TING The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. Ayes (5) Blesener, FaYiey, LaValle, Scalze, Collova. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Bvok No. 21, page 125. Mr. Chlebeck explained to Council the Metro East Display Board. A used board wi11 cost $1G00, the slcirt will cost $250 and tkie header wi11 cost $225, for a total of $2241. Mr. Fahey introduced tYie following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-125 - APPROVING THE CITY CLERK OFFER $2100 FOR THE NIETRO EAST DISPLAY BOARD BUT AUTHORIZE A TOTAL OF $2241. Tkie foregoiny resolution was duly seconded. Ayes (5) Blesener, Collova, Scalze, Fahey, LaValle. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 125. Mr. Blesener introduced tYie following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-125 - APPROVING VOUCHERS The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. LaValle. Page -18- Adminis- Ayes (5) LaValle, Blesener, Fahey, Collova, Scalze. tration Nays (0). (Cont) Resolution declared adopted. 'Phis resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 125. Adjourn Mr. LaVa11e introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Agenda Item No. 22 RESOLUTION N0. 89-3-126 - ADJOURNING The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. Ayes (5) LaValle, Blesener, Fahey, Collova, Scalze. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 21, page 126. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ Marcia Landis Recording Secretary Page -19-