Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1996/05/13APPR~lf~D Page 1 . May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 CALL TO ORDER The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor Linke at 7:00 p.m. on May 13, 1996. • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Linke, Council members Trude, Blanchard, Quick and Hankner ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Coordinator Joyce Pruitt, Planning Associate Mary Tatarek, Interim Finance Coordinator Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works, ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. Apri122, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Blanchard/Hankner to approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on Apri122, 1986, as presented. • VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Page 2 • May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Februarv 22, 1996: MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Hankner to accept the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes of February 22, 1996 as presented. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Cable Committee Minutes -April 11. 1996: MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Hankner to accept the Cable Commission Minutes for April 11, 1996 as presented. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Economic Development Commission Minutes -March 28. 1996: MOTION/SECOND: Blanchard/Hankner to accept the Economic Development Commission minutes of March 28, 1996 as presented. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Mayor Linke took this opportunity to read the Proclamation Declaring the week of May 19th through the 25th as National Public Works Week.and presented it to Chuck Whiting to be displayed in the city offices. CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Whiting, Clerk Administrator read the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Set Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Tuesday, May 28, 1996 to Consider Ordinance No. 581, An Ordinance Amending Title 1100, Section 1114.04 Entitled, "Motor Vehicle Sales". B. Authorized Preparation of Financial Statements for the "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report" by the City's Auditors at a Cost Not to Exceed $2,000.00 Over Present Audit Contract. C. Award Bid for Playground Equipment to Replace Old Equipment at Random Park. D. Approve Engineering Study for Pump, Motor and Starter Replacement and Electrical Upgrade at the Booster Station Funded by a Transfer of $3,500.00 from the Water Contingency Account (700-4123-910) to the Professional Services Account (700-4123-303). Page 3 • May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council E. Set Public Hearing for Tuesday, May 28, 1996 at 7:10 p.m. to Consider Ordinance No. 582, Amending the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 502.04, Subdivision 2 (c) Entitled "Intoxicating Liquor, Eligibility". F. Adopt Resolution No. 4950, Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds. G. Licenses for Approval: Restaurant -Expires 6/30/96 Hardee's (change of ownership) -New HVAC - ExQres 6/30/96 Coronado Enterprises -Renewal Dave's Refrigeration -New Gilbert Mechanical -New Martens/Sammon Heating & Air Conditioning -New • Siding -Expires 6/30/96 Tom Gnan Siding Company -New General (Commercial) -Expires 6/30/96 Metro Building Systems -New Sewer/Water -Expires 6/30/96 Gene's Water & Sewer -Renewal Schulties Plumbing -New MOTION/SECOND: TrudeBlanchard to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: Mayor Linke explained that this portion of the meeting was designated for anyone who wished to speak to the Council on items that were not on the Agenda. Bill Siercks, 2210 Pinewood Drive, asked why there were no Public Hearings held on the purchase of the Be1Rae Ballroom. He was angered that the City Council took it upon themselves to make the decision without any public input. Robert Linton, 2653 Scotland Court, stated the council's decision to purchase the ballroom shows betrayal of trust that the public expects from the Council. He feels the decision should have been voted on in open Council session under full public scrutiny. Page 4 • May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council Sara Weeks, 2653 Scotland Court, stated she is opposed to the purchase of the Be1Rae Ballroom. She stated she believes the number of those in opposition to the purchase is far greater than the Council would like to believe. She also believes the Council Work Session on May 6th should have been publicized. Ms. Trude explained that the Five Year Goal Plan in the Focus 2000 sets a vision for the community. One of the goals was to have a community center for Mounds View. The purchase of the Be1Rae Ballroom was first discussed two years ago. She noted that she had received several telephone calls over the weekend from residents who would have been disappointed if the city had lost the opportunity to purchase the property. She explained that another party had come forward and offered the owner of the property a larger sum of money. Failure to act on the purchase could have resulted in the city losing the purchase opportunity. Ms. Hanker stated she wished to add some comments, which she requested be included verbatim in the minutes. Her comments were as follows: "I am submitting these written comments to the Mounds View City Council minutes and for the general - public because I believe that the residents of Mounds View should be given information regarding the way business is being conducted by this city council. Within the last eight months this city council has made very large expenditures with very little public input. The first time was October 1995 when action was taken to spend $190, 000 on a pedestrian bridge. The item was already moving through the budgeting process and would have been part of a public hearing, but the council decided to not notes the public and taken action at a different time. No public hearing was held before action on the expenditure was taken. It was done when it was known that I would be out of town on business. The general public and one council member received virtually no advance notice. On May 6, the council called to order in a posted work session and took action to purchase the Bel Rae Ballroom. Mayor Linke, Council members Trude and Blanchard voted to buy the Bel Rae. Council member Quick voted against it. They said it was a crisis situation. No public hearing was planned nor held. The general public and one council member were not given proper notification of possible action. The council knew that I would be out of town on business for my employer. The following is a list ofpoints I want to make concerning the purchase of the Bel Rae: Sequence of Events A. The council adopted a resolution giving staff authority to have the property assessed and to begin talks with representatives of other public entities that might lease space. The Mayor objected to talking with others but ultimately agreed to it in a public meeting. Council received an appraisal and very little other substantiated information. B. On April 22, council approved an option to buy agreement that would expire on July 9, 1996. This route was chosen because it would tell Mr. Jambor that the city was interested enough to put some money • down and to allow itself to go through the necessary planning steps to determine if the purchase would be worthwhile for the city. Page 5 . May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council C. On April 29, council authorized the hiring of an architectural firm to help gather information about possible uses. Staff raised concerns about the need to plan before a purchase was made. Council has not yet received this information. D. On May 1, Mr. Jambor refused to sign the option to buy agreement. Staff requested a meeting with Mr. Jambor. A meeting was arranged for that day, May 1. Mayor Linke and Council member Blanchard attended. Council member Quick nor I were told of the meeting. I found out about it 30 minutes before it took place because I happened to have called the administrator about another issue. He told me about Mr. Jambor. E. On May 2, I called the administrator and was informed of intimidating comments made by Mr. Jambor's lawyer to staff. I was informed at that time that the mayor had called an "emergency" meeting for May 3 at S: 30 p.m. Council member Quick questioned the legality of notice of the meeting. On May 3, the meeting was cancelled. F. On May 6, the council called to order in a work session and took action to buy the Bel Rae. Work sessions are known to be a time when the council does not take action on business. Work sessions are only discussion sessions. On rare occasions, minor items are taken care of. Emergency -Crisis??? There is a claim of an emergency and a crisis. It appears that there was a drummed up crisis and certainly no emergency. The health and safety of residents was not at risk. The following is other information that may help to understand the situation. - According to staff, Mr. Jambor refused to negotiate with staff. For months he and the mayor held their own private talks with no notification to arryone and without sharing information with the council. - From Mr. Jambor's side of the debate there has been only hearsay. No written evidence of other purchase offers was provided to the council. Hearsay was that Mr. Waste was ready to buy now at a substantially higher price. Weeks ago Mr. Waste had told me that he was interested in the facility and that Mr. Jambor told him that he could have second chance at a purchase if the city did not buy it. A major developer talked to me about its interest in the property and I told the council and asked staff to follow up. To my knowledge there has been no follow-up. - It was reported that Mr. Jambor told many people that the city was buying the facility. He said he had a handshake deal with the mayor. - According to staff, Mr. Jambor and his lawyer, at the one meeting in city hall, complained that the city was not treating him very well. Mr. Jambor and his lawyer said that my comment about the city being able to have the option to get out of the deal was terrible. However, the fact is the agreement allowed the city to do just that if the city determined the purchase was not in the best interest of the city. • Results Page 6 . May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council The action taken by the Mayor and Council members Trude and Blanchard results in the following: - A $750, 000 expenditure without public notice and input. No public hearing was held. The public was given no advance notice of pending action. - A $750, 000 expenditure with no market study or needs analysis. Questions about what would be a successful use have no answers. - A $750, 000 expenditure with no survey of residents as to what they would want and support. - We now own a facility and have not identified a revenue source to cover unidentified operating costs. - We now own a facility and have not identified renovation costs including the removal of asbestos. - We now own a facility with no firm agreements with potential partners. • - We now have staff spending time on the development of this project without deciding what in city business will not or cannot be done. This may take additional staff at an undetermined cost. - The building and property will be taken off the tax roles which means you took money away from the county, school district and the city. This means either budget cuts or added costs to other property owners. - You ignored the advice of your own Economic Development Commission. They recommended keeping it on the tax roles. This was a very real possibility. - You ignored the advice of your own staff who cautioned against moving too quickly with not enough information. You put the staff in a very d~cult situation. It appears to me and other residents that what we have to say does not matter than that you have no desire to consider our viewpoints except when it is convenient to you. Two other examples are: - When the council was considering the water meter change-out at the cost of about $580, 000 council member Trude insisted that we needed many pubic meetings to hear residents' concerns. In that case we had a one year study that gave us necessary information. We all agreed to have many public meetings. Why wasn't this done in the case of the Bel-Rae? - Earlier this year at the work session the council agreed 4-1 to transfer the administration of the golf course from Parks and Recreation to Administration. The Mayor left town and asked council members Blanchard and Trude to table the item because he wanted to be present. They made every attempt to do just that. They would not allow me to complete my statements about the issue and said that we should wait for the mayor to get back. It seems they are unable to make decisions without him. Why is it all council members are not given the same courtesy to express their view and the views of those people they • represent? Page 7 • May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council Business in this city is not being done in the interest of the residents. If it were there would be a consistent openness in city government. All decisions would be made in public and with many opportunities for the public to try to influence the debate and decisions. The action taken by Mayor Linke and council members Trude and Blanchard on May 6 is a violation of trust and it adds fuel to the cynicism and apathy that already exists in the hearts and souls of voters. Having said all of this, the course we must take now is to give the staff the support they need to make the best of this situation. They need time to plan very carefully and to develop a project that will work to the extent possible. And, our role as a council ought to be one of having only public meetings on this issue and to collectively engage in problem solving strategies cooperatively with the staff. Building consensus with public input is what is needed." Ms. Trude explained that it was the Economic Development Commission that authorized the purchase of the property. There were no requirements for a public hearing, but there was a request for one by Council member Hankner. PUBLIC HEARINGS: • There were no public hearings scheduled for this meeting. COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. Consideration of Resolution No. 4952, Resolutions Regarding a Variance Request for Tom Manke and Leon Theis, Owners of Mounds View Fina, 2280 West County Road I. Ms. Joyce Pruitt, Acting Community Development Director, gave a brief description of the variance request. She explained that Leon Theis and Tom Manke, owners of the Mounds View Fina, had requested a variance from the Planning Commission to allow the placement of a 24' X 44' canopy atop a gas pump island at their station. They requested a variance fora 24' encroachment into the required thirty foot setback. She explained that the request was denied by the Planning Commission as they felt it would be granting the applicant a special privilege that is denied to other property owners in the same or similar zones. Mayor Linke noted that the Planning Commission did feel the canopy would be a benefit to the property, however they could not approve the variance and felt there were alternatives that could be examined for the site. He felt a 24 foot variance fora 30 foot setback requirement was rather extreme. Mr. Manke stated that he plans to update the site whether or not the variance is granted. All they are asking for is a canopy to upgrade it to the 90's, to give security to the customers and to provide weather protection for them. He would be willing to move it back and down towards Adam Street if it would help on the variance issue. A discussion followed as to whether or not a canopy would be considered a new structure (thus an • enlargement of anon-conforming use). Ms. Trude stated if the variance were to be granted, perhaps the Page 8 • May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council council could state a condition that the canopy would need to be removed if a new business were established at that location. Council member Quick stated he could not support approval of the variance. Trude stated she also would not be in favor of granting the requested variance. Ms. Blanchard stated the city has a code and their responsibility is to enforce it, therefore she would not be in favor of granting the variance request as presented. responsibility is to enforce it, therefore she would not be in favor of granting the request either as it has been presented. It was the general consensus of the council that if Mr. Manke and Mr. Theis go back, redraft the plans and come back with a new proposal that would not require such a large variance the council would review it again and make a decision at that time. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to approve Resolution No. 4952, A Resolution; Regarding a Variance Request for Mounds View Fina, 2280 West County Road I (denying the variance request). . B. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance No. 574, An Ordinance Regulating Adult Establishments, Premises Conducive to High Risk Sexual Conduct, Adding Chapters 512 and 608 and Amending Chapters 1113 and 1116 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Ms. Pruitt explained that at the May 6, 1996 Work Session, staff and Bob Long informed the council that the provision for defming a restaurant as a protected use would not be workable within the proposed Adult Use Ordinance. Mr. Long stated he felt this restriction could create a problem in defending the ordinance as constitutional in court. Therefore, the restaurant provision will not be included as a protected use. In addition, there were a few minor changes which Ms. Pruitt proceeded to go through with the council members. Ms. Trude asked about restrictions of signs in the windows of the adult establishment. Mr. Long stated a court ruling regarding regulations on window coverings could be included as an amendment to (h) or be added as (i). MOTION/SECOND: TrudeBlanchard to approve the Adoption of Ordinance No. 574, An Ordinance Regulating Adult Establishments, Premises Conducive to High Risk Sexual Conduct, Adding Chapters 512 and 608 and Amending Chapters 1113 and 1116 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, WITH THE AMENDMENT as prepared by Mr. Long incorporating the language permitted as a result of the court ruling on the window covering regulations, to appear as an amendment to Subd. 6, (h) or added as (i). ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor Linke Aye Council member Trude Aye Council member Hankner Aye • Council member Quick Aye Council member Blanchard Aye Page 9 • May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council Motion Carried C. Update on 8265 Spring Lake Road. Ms. Pruitt gave a brief update in regard to the property at 8265 Spring Lake Road. She noted that the property is vacant at this time. She stated she has been working with the HUD contractor to clean up the property. HUD received the property on Apri130, 1996 and by law they have 28 days to remedy the violations on the property. Ms. Pruitt will provide the council with an update at the next meeting. D. Consideration of Resolution No. 4943, Adopting the 1997 Budget Calendar and Long Term Financial Plan. Ms. Mary Tatarek, Interim Finance Coordinator, noted that Section 7.04 of the City Charger requires that a budget calendar be adopted annually. Resolution No. 4943 will fulfill this requirement. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trnde to approve Resolution No. 4943, Adopting the 1997 Budget Calendar and Long Term Financial Plan. . VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried E. Consideration of Resolution 4945, Establishing a Petty Cash Fund at the Municipal Golf Course. Ms. Tatarek explained that staff asked the auditors to suggest a means of handing the financial needs of the golf course. They have advised staff to establish a petty cash fund to help the golf course meet their financial needs. A fund of $50.00 has been recommended and a resolution prepared which contains stipulations for how the petty cash is to be handled. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Blanchard to approve Resolution No. 4945, Establishing a Petty Cash Fund at the Municipal Golf Course. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried F. Consideration of Approval of Contract with American Portable Telecom (APT) to Install Communication Antennas on the City Water Tower. Mr. Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, explained that staff has been negotiating a contract with APT for the use of the City Water Tower to install digital communication antennas. The contract was drafted by the city attorney and includes an $11,000 per year lease agreement with APT. The initial contract period is for one five year term with an option of three renewable five year periods. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Quick to approve the contract with American Telecom (APT) to install communication antennas on the City Water Tower. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Page 10 • May 13, 1996 Mounds View Crty Council G. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance No. 580, Amending the Municipal Code of Mounds View By Amending Chapter 306.05, Entitled "Vacations and Holidays" As Amended. Mayor Linke read amendment to Ordinance No. 580. Mr. Chuck Whiting, Clerk-Administrator, in conferring with the city attorney, felt there may be some legal technicalities in the language contained in Subd. 1. (a.). Mr. Long suggested that this item be tabled until the May 28, 1996 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Blanchard to table Item G until the May 28, 1996 City Council meeting. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried H. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance No. 576, Amending the Municipal Code of Mounds View by Amending Chapters 906.13 Entitled, "Water Rates and Billing Regulations". • Ms. Tatarek noted that this Ordinance was introduced at the Apri122, 1996 City Council meeting. MOTION/SECOND; Trude/Blanchard to Approve the Adoption of Ordinance No. 576 Amending the Municipal Code of Mounds View by Amending Chapters 906.13 Entitled "Water Rates and Billing Regulations". ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor Linke aye Council member Trade aye Council member Hankner aye Council member Quick aye Council member Blanchard aye Motion Carried I. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance No. 577, Amending the Municipal Code of Mounds View by Amending Chapter 907.14 Entitled "Sewer Use Rates and Billing". MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Trade to Approve the Adoption of Ordinance No. 577, Amending the Municipal Code of Mounds View by Amending Chapter 907.14 Entitled "Sewer Use Rates and Billing". ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor Linke aye Council member Trade aye Council member Hankner aye Council member Quick aye Council member Blanchard aye • Motion Carried Page 11 May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council J. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance No. 578, Setting Water Rates and Surcharges Effective April 1, 1996. Mayor Linke read the portion of Ordinance No. 578, which set the new water rates and surcharges. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Linke to Approve the Adoption of Ordinance No. 578, Setting Water Rates. and Surcharges Effective April 1, 1996. ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion Carried. Mayor Linke aye Council member Trude aye Council member Hankner aye Council member Quick aye Council member Blanchard aye L. Consideration of Resolution No. 4951, Supporting Cooperative Participation in the North Metro • 35W Corridor Coalition. Ms. Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Coordinator, explained that over the past six months she has been meeting with representatives from the cities of Arden Hills, New Brighton, Roseville and Shoreview to discuss the possibility of developing a more cooperative planning and economic development partnership for the I-35W Corridor in the North Metro. Some of the common issues that have been identified over the six months include transportation, community development block grants, marketing, housing as it relates to the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and information sharing as it relates GIS mapping and the Internet technology. An important element to the success of the group is to obtain support from the city councils. Resolution No. 4951 will support the City of Mounds View's participation in the North Metro 35W Corridor Coalition. MOTION/SECOND: HanknerBlanchard to approve Resolution No. 4951 Supporting Cooperative Participation in the North Metro 35W Corridor Coalition. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Ms. Trude suggested that when Community Development Block Grant issues come up, the County Commissioner be invited to be present as well. Ms. Bennett read Resolution No. 4951 aloud. M. Consideration of Introduction of Ordinance No. 582, Amending the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 502.04, Subdivision 2 (c) Entitled, "Intoxicating Liquor Eligibility". Ms. Bennett explained that the current Liquor License Requirements states that no license shall be granted for an premises within five hundred feet of the property line of any school or church located in Mounds View. This restricts all of the businesses in Mounds View Square from being eligible for a liquor license Page 12 May 13, 1996 Mounds View City Council due to its close proximity to the Sunrise Christian Daycare/Church. Three potential tenants have been found for the Bridgeman property, all of whom have requested a liquor license. In order to allow this, an amendment would need to be made to Section 502.04 of the Liquor Code: An amendment has been drafted by Bob Long which would allow a license to be issued within 50 feet of the property line of a school or church only for those property that abut Highway 10 between Long Lake Road and Silver Lake Road. Ms. Bennett stated she spoke with the pastor at Sunrise Methodist who stated he would announce the proposed change to his congregation. Mayor Linke stated a list of eight signatures had been submitted to the city indicating their desire to NOT have liquor served at the site. Additionally, one Planning Commission member also called to oppose the change to the code. Ms. Blanchard indicated that she had a problem with amending the ordinance for just one area. She feels it could set a precedence for other areas. Ms. Bennett noted that she feels it will be difficult to attract asit-down style restaurant without a liquor license. Bob Long commented that this is not a zoning change, therefore the city can set whatever distance requirements are reasonable m regard to liquor licenses. This could be done for a specific geographical area. Ms. Bennett noted that the problem with that particular area is that the church property goes all the way to Highway 10. Alice Frits. 8072 Long Lake Road stated the new pedestrian bridge will allow kids to cross over right in front of the restaurant. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Quick to Approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. 582, Amending the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 502.04, Subdivision 2(c) Entitled, "Intoxicating Liquor, Eligibility". VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mayor Linke noted that a Public Hearing on this item will be held on Tuesday, May 28, 1996. REPORTS: Report of Council members: Quick: No report. Blanchard: No report. Hankner: No report. Page 13 May 13, 1996 Mounds View Crty Council Trude: No report. Report of Mayor Linke: Mayor Linke noted that Clean Up Day is scheduled for Saturday, May 18th. Information is available in the newsletter. Report of Administrator: No report. Report of Staff: No report. Report of Attorney Mr. Long noted that Subdivison 8 does appear to contain necessary language in regard to Window Covering Regulations (in both (g) and (h).) Mayor Linke noted that the next City Council Meeting is scheduled for TUESDAY, May 28, 1996. The next Work Session is on June 3, 1996. Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. ectfully submitted, / ~y~ ~~ Can C(. ~~C;t l ui . _ Tamara D. sAEFKE Recording Secretary • • • • -PIeRSP ~~_ ~. r ~r~;^ ~~~~~c~C i. ofo /~v,~T L;,/ iG~-/ ,,~, , ~ /' i'~3 J,,.~=~f ~~e~~` ~ ~~~(, ri'~l-~~/ _ ;~ ,` :, ,t `~.~' ..`,' ~s~, ~,c~--r- - III 3 ~i'~C ~'t X53 S~CT'~~T~J~ «~ ~ ~~ i/ aa~~ ~~ . ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~z 32 ~~' ,/ ~~' J~ ~~ ~z~~ ,~~ ~il