Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1994/12/12 APPRUVtU >i PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 110 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 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 December 12, 1994 . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Linke, Councilmembers Wuori, Blanchard, Quick and Trude 4111 MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Samantha Orduno, City Administrator; Don Brager, Finance Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator; Rocky Keene, City Consulting Engineer ADDITIONS TO AGENDA: Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, explained that the Pipeline Safety Advisory Council had requested that her reappointment be in the form of a Resolution. Mayor Linke stated that Resolution No. 4691 Supporting the Reappointment of Samantha Orduno to—the— - - Pipeline Safety Advisory Council would be added as Item li-E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Wuori to Approve Closed Council Meeting Minutes from September 12, 1994, as Submitted VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: Wuori/Quick to Approve Regular Council Meeting Minutes from November 29, 1994, as Submitted 4111 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ® Mounds View City Council Page 2 Regular Meeting December 12 , 1994 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Approve Budget Hearing Meeting Minutes from November 30, 1994, as Submitted VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: Planning Commission Minutes from October 19, 1994, and November 2 , 1994 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Wuori to Approve Planning Commission Minutes from October 19, 1994, and November 2, 1994, as Submitted VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: There was no Special Order of Business scheduled for this meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, read the Consent Agenda as 4111 follows: A. Consideration of Resolution No. 4680, Step Adjustment for Administrative Clerk, Staff Report No. 94-1397C B. Consideration of Resolution No. 4681, Step Adjustment for Building Inspector, Staff Report No. 94-1398C C. Consideration of Resolution No. 4682 , Step Adjustment for Code Enforcement Officer, Staff Report No. 94-1399C D Consideration of Budget Amendment to Reflect First Class Postal Increase; Staff Report No. -94-1400C ---- - ---- E. Consideration of Award of Newsletter Printing Bid, Staff Report No. 94-1401C F. Consideration of Water Division Funds to 1995 Budget, Staff Report No. 94-1402C G. Adopt Resolution No. 4687 Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds H. Consideration of Resolution No. 4690 Approving Membership to the Metro East Development Partnership for $500, Staff Report 1111 No. 94-1403C Mounds View City Council Page 3 41/1 Regular Meeting December 12 , 1994 I. Licenses for Approval HVAC - Expires 6/30/95 Don's Plumbing - New Siding - Expires 6/30/95 Wallmaster Home Improvements - New Mayor Linke asked if there were any items the Council desired removed from the Consent Agenda. There were none. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Adopt 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 and asked if there were any residents requests and comments from the floor. There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Consideration of Resolution No. 4683, a Resolution Levying a Tax for Delinquent Utility Bills, Tree Removal and Miscellaneous Charges Over a One Year Period Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 7 : 05 p.m. Don Brager, Finance Director, reported that the purpose of the hearing was to consider certification of delinquent utility bills, tree removal and miscellaneous charges to Ramsey County for collection-with 199-5 -property taxes-. --Letters--were--sent to those customers advising them of the hearing and of the City's intent to have the charges certified to their taxes, payable in 1995. Since those letters were sent, a number of the accounts have been paid in full. There are still many remaining to be certified which are listed on the Staff Report furnished to the Council. Mayor Linke asked if there had been any changes in the amount of delinquent charges since Resolution No. 4683 had been written which would change the amount of the Resolution. Brager said that a payment had been received on the property at 5701 Quincy Street, leaving an amount still owing of $2, 100.84 on 4110 that property. Mounds View City Council Page 4 4111 Regular Meeting December 12 , 1994 Trude commented that, because some people do not pay their water bills, street light bills, and surface water bills, all of the residents are affected. She felt the public should be made aware of these delinquent amounts and directed the list be read. Brager read the list of 1995 Delinquent Utility Bills To Be Certified On Taxes in 1995, noting that payment had been received on the property at 5701 Quincy Street since the time the list was made up. He also read the 1994 Miscellaneous Charges To Be Certified On Taxes in 1995 and stated the total amount to be certified was approximately $36, 000. The Resolution would be amended to reflect the amount of payment received on the 5701 Quincy Street property. Cameron Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, asked whom the money was owed to and if any collection action had been taken. Linke said it was owed to the City of Mounds View and letters have been sent to the people owing the money in an attempt to collect. Rather than hire a collection agency, the City would have the delinquent charges certified on the taxes. Mr. Obert asked if the City had done this in the past and, if so, 1111 did the method work. Linke explained that this process was done every year and, eventually, the money was collected. Alex Hunt, 3055 Eagandale Pl. , Eagan, explained that his property was 5701 Quincy Street. He requested the Council to offer special consideration to his situation and said that it was never his intention to avoid paying the water bills. He had recently submitted payment for the entire amount of water service, excluding any amount owed for penalties. He stated that he had made several phone calls to City Officials as well as written correspondence requesting some sort of compromise for the delinquent charges, but felt the City was unwilling to negotiate. Mr. Hunt commented that most of the charges owed were accumulated by a previous owner under a different name. At the time he repossessed the property, he was unaware of the delinquent charges. The amount of the payment for the actual water service that was recently made was $2 ,500 and the amount still owing for the penalties is $2 , 100. He had not operated the building at a profit and felt the penalties were unreasonable and too financially burdensome. Raising the rents in that rental unit was not feasible. Mayor Linke asked Mr. Hunt when he had taken the building back. Mr. Hunt replied that it was December 1993 . 1111 Mounds View City Council Page 5 • Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 Linke mentioned that, by taking the building back, all past due bills became the responsibility of Mr. Hunt and since that time, only one payment had been received for the delinquent bills. Mr. Hunt said that he intended to pay the bills and that he had made several attempts to negotiate with the City. Brager explained the billing process and the finance charges which apply for the City of Mounds View. Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, commented that because of the volume of late payments, a ten percent penalty was assessed which is not unusual for a City. Since the penalty was implemented, the amount of money remitted to the City has increased. There are also legal fees that the City must pay when collection is necessary. Councilmember Trude asked if a payment plan would be a possibility. Mr. Hunt said that, even with a payment plan, the amount owed to the City would prevent him from making any profit from the rental unit. He requested the Council to forgive all penalty charges and stated that he would pay in full the amount for the actual water 1111 service. Mr. Obert commented that, although he was sympathetic to Mr. Hunt's circumstances, there also exists a long list of other properties that owe penalties for delinquent charges. He felt the issue should be addressed that what is done for one person, should be done for all. Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 7: 31 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Adopt Resolution No. 4683 as Amended, a Resolution Levying a Tax for Delinquent Utility Bills, Tree Remova-iand Miscellaneous_ Charges Over _a_ One Year Period Councilmember Trude noted that Mr. Hunt has made no payments on the delinquent charges for the past year and she was not in favor of eliminating the penalty charges. She also stressed that it was necessary to be consistent. Councilmember Blanchard commented that it was not fair that all the other residents would have to pay the penalty charges for Mr. Hunt if he did not pay in a timely manner. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Samantha Orduno expressed her appreciation to Mr. Hunt because he • had always remained courteous and respectful in his dealings with City Officials. Mounds View City Council Page 6 110 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 Consideration of the Transfer of the Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Murzyn Liquors, 2850 Highway 10 Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 7: 34 p.m. Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, explained that Stanley Murzyn, Sr. , proprietor of Murzyn Liquors, is transferring his stock in Murzyn Liquors to his son Stanley Joseph Murzyn, Jr. and his wife Patricia Ann Murzyn. The transfer fee of $100 has been charged and a public hearing is required. The Police Department has run the required reports, all of which were clean. Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 7 : 35 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Blanchard to Approve the Transfer of the Off- Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Murzyn Liquors, 2850 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit, Louis Downing, Woodale and Longview, Resolution No. 4671 Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 7 : 36 p.m. Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, reviewed the circumstances of this public hearing and explained that Louis Downing made application for a Wetland Alteration Permit to allow the construction of a single family home in the Wetland Buffer Zone. Mounds View Municipal Code requires the issuance of a Wetland Alteration Permit for the construction, alteration or removal of any structure in or upon a Wetland Zoning District, of which the Buffer Zone is part of. Following the November 29 Counc l—Meetings --request was madeto have theCity_s__Consulting_____ Engineer present to explain the impacts of the development on the Wetland and surrounding properties. Rocky Keene, City Consulting Engineer, used an overhead projector to show the area that drains to the 105 acre Wetland located behind the proposed house. The discharge location is two 36-inch culverts. The runoff potential is very low due to sandy soil conditions in this area. As part of the Local Water Management Plan, a hydrology study had been done. Keene presented a map indicating the water level for a 100 year event, noting that the minimum building elevation is at 892 feet which is almost a foot higher than Silver Lake Road. Before the water level would get up 11111 to 892 feet, it would overtop the road and proceed down to Spring Creek. Mounds View City Council Page 7 1111 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 Keene pointed out the actual drainage patterns across the property. It is a very small impacted area through the whole watershed itself and is limited to an area that actually drains through the property. A diagram was presented showing the proposed house on the property. The house is situated in the major drainage system that goes through the site, therefore, if any grading is done, this will have to be taken into consideration. The contours of the area are such that the proposed house would block the drainage from the adjacent property. That could be compensated by draining the water around the side of the house, through the back of the property and back into its natural drainage system. A portion of the property would be blocked without some regrading. Keene indicated the adjacent property that he felt would be impacted by the development. This would be a local impact and would require measures to ensure the water coming off the adjacent property goes either around the proposed house and out the back yard or through a culvert. Keene explained the purpose of the Buffer Zone was to protect the Wetlands. There are measures that can be done to alleviate some of the impacts of development in the Buffer Zone such as maintaining 1111 as much natural vegetation as possible and restoring areas that are disturbed back to long grasses and wooded areas. On this property, the area that currently drains through the Buffer Zone is a relatively small area and, with some of the proposed rerouting, the drainage would actually go through a longer buffer area than it currently does now, or could be modified to go back through more of a natural buffer area. Councilmember Trude asked Mr. Keene to explain the diagram showing the 100 year event and was concerned that water would come right up to the side of the house. Keene-noted--that--the-100--foot Buffer--Z-one- was based-_-on the City Wetland maps. The topography maps were not completed at that time, so the elevations were an estimation. Since the proposed house would block the natural drainage from the adjacent property, the drainage would have to be redirected. Keene recommended a culvert to satisfy the drainage, and noted that the area in question was only 10 feet. Mayor Linke asked if the drainage would be directed enough so that no ponding would occur next to the proposed house. Keene affirmed that a culvert would be adequate and easily maintained. Councilmember Blanchard asked if soil borings had been done on this 1111 property. 1111Mounds View City Council Page 8 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 Harrington affirmed that soil borings had been done on the site, however, the hydrology was not determined by those soil borings and they could not be considered at this hearing. They would be used if the house were actually to be constructed, because suitable soil is required for the house to be built on. Blanchard expressed concern about the soil being peat rather than sand. Steve Feldner, 5168 Longview Drive, asked where the proposed culvert would go in relation to the proposed house. He was concerned that water would have to build up before the culvert would be effective and stated that the area had standing water seven months out of the year. He felt the maps were incorrect. Keene explained the elevations and possible location of a culvert, which would be at the natural ground elevation that presently exists. Dave Tillmann, 5166 Longview Drive, questioned when the Wetland boundaries were drawn. He said that in 1992 there was a Wetland Boundary Expansion Act done by the Federal government and he 1111 believed this property could be part of a Wetland. Harrington explained that when an application is made with the City, the City's adopted maps are used to review the project. When action is taken on Wetland Alteration Permits, contingencies in those Resolutions require that the applicant approach Rice Creek Watershed District, which operates separately from the City. Linke said the original Wetland Ordinance was passed in 1982 and, since that time, every Wetland redelineation has resulted in a smaller Wetland area, not larger. M-r--. Till-mann- asked if any Counci-l-member-- had physically seen this lot in the summer. He said that nothing grows on the lot in the early months of summer because of standing water. Linke explained that the Council had two situations to consider, the first being the Wetland Ordinance and how this pertains to it, the second is the issue of a City doing a "taking" of the property if this Resolution is denied. The reason the proposed building site is located in the Buffer Zone is because Mwcc put a massive drain through there in the 1950's with a 30 foot easement which takes up much of the lot that could have been built upon. Harold Hjelle, 5161 Red Oak Drive, said the soil in the area • changes dramatically and questioned whether the proposed building site was actually sand. He asked where the borings had been done Mounds View City Council Page 9 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 and how deep they were. If unsuitable soil was to be removed from the property, how much would be removed. Harrington explained that the soil borings were done where the proposed house would be located. Linke responded that the purpose of the public hearing was to consider the impacts of the Wetlands and Buffer Zone. Ray Schelonka, 5139 Red Oak Drive, expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Blanchard for offering his input at the last meeting since he was unable to attend. He has lived there since 1969 and said there is standing water in the proposed building site, which would require the area to be built up. He is concerned that backfilling the property would cause water problems in his house. Linke explained that if the Wetland Alteration Permit is approved, the owner of the property will have to find a way to alleviate the drainage because, by law, the owner cannot do anything that will adversely affect the adjacent properties. Keene clarified that when he referred to the area as being sandy, he was referring to the entire drainage area--not to the building site specifically. Councilmember Quick asked Mr. Keene for his opinion as to whether this could work if the property owner was required to meet contingencies on the lot. Mr. Keene felt that the drainage issues could be resolved and the development could work. His biggest concern was the ability to get the water out of this property and into the Wetland, which a culvert system would alleviate. He recommended a field survey to determine why the water is not draining off when all maps indicate - that it should. Perhaps the-amount of water -draining from_ the adjacent park could be the cause of standing water on the property. Mr. Tillmann said that half of the park had standing water after a heavy rain and if the proposed development prevented drainage, three quarters of the park would be destroyed. Linke clarified that any drainage from the property would be redirected to remain on the property. It would not be allowed to drain off the property. Cameron Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, felt that enough information was not yet received to issue the Wetland Alteration Permit for a 411 house to be built. 1111 Mounds View City Council Page 10 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 Joel Sheldon, 5143 Red Oak Drive, pointed out on the map the lot which he lives on. He questioned the effectiveness of a culvert to be used for drainage. Trude said that she would like to see the soil borings that were done on the property. She was also concerned that this variance was applied for in the winter so the on-site inspection would be more difficult to perform. Harrington explained that the soil borings were done to determine if the soils could support a foundation and were required by the Building Inspector. The results of those borings would not be pertinent to a Wetland Alteration Permit. Although application was made for this permit two months ago, notice of a public hearing was required which pushed this item into the winter months. Harrington also commented that there were instances in the past, in which Council directed specific projects to be done under the general direction of the City's Consulting Engineer. Keene advised that a detailed grading plan would be required because the drainage issues were so critical. The property owner 1111 would have to demonstrate that, in deed, he was protecting his neighbors. Monitoring the construction of the home would be the responsibility of the Building Inspector. Upon completion of construction, the City would verify that the plan was followed as proposed. Trude asked if the property owner could alter the landscaping in the Buffer Zone after the building was completed. Keene explained that every time the property owner wanted to make changes in the Buffer Zone, a Wetland Alteration Permit would have to be applied for. - -- -Trude requested the- City- Attorney - to clarify the latitude the Council had regarding the discretion to grant a variance. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, said that the Council did, in fact, have discretion regarding the variance. The problem in this particular case was that the City has approved the Plat. By approving the Plat, they have approved the lot as a buildable lot. If, by the City's action, the property owner cannot build on the lot the City has deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the lot. If compensation was received by the property owner at the time the MWCC created the easement, rendering the property unbuildable, then compensation has already been received and cannot again be received for the property. Linke asked if a variance was denied, would that be considered a "taking" by the City. Mounds View City Council Page 11 Regular Meeting December 12 , 1994 Thomson replied that many facts would have to be considered in order for a determination to be made, however, he was concerned that it would be considered a "taking" because the property owner would be deprived of all economically viable use of the property. In order to make that determination, the property owner would have to make application to use the property for a specific purpose, such as building a house. If, by denying a Wetland Alteration Permit, the property owner has been denied all economically viable use of the property, there is a possibility the action would be considered a "taking. " Trude questioned what was specifically meant by economically viable use. Harrington explained the only economically viable use for the property would be a single family home, a duplex, or twin home because the property is zoned R-2 . No businesses would be allowed. Mr. Tillmann said that the lot had been for sale since he moved in, which was in 1991. He felt it was not a good lot and that's why it has taken so long for the property to sell. 4111 Sherri Ruff, 1829 NW 127 Lane, Coon Rapids, explained that her father owns the property in question, and felt that other issues should not be a consideration at this public hearing. The only issue to be considered should be the impact to the Wetland. Mary Feldner, 5168 Longview Drive, said she was not against a house being built there, but felt there was not enough information received to approve the Permit. Todd McCall, 5164 Longview Drive, expressed concern that landscaping changes to the property would be done after the house was completed. He wanted assurance that the City would still have - - --control of- the--Buffer--Zone___and that __approval_ for any changes would have to be obtained from the City. Linke explained that, by adopting this Resolution, the Council could dictate how the grading will be done on the property. Those plans cannot be changed without going through the process of obtaining a Wetland Alteration Permit. He cited an example of property owners in Mounds View who made alterations to their property in a Buffer Zone without obtaining approval. The City required them to remove those alterations and return the landscaping to the original plan. Mr. Schelonka commented that it appeared as if there was going to • be a wall on the southeast corner of the proposed house. • Mounds View City Council Page 12 Regular Meeting December 12 , 1994 Keene stated that it did appear as if there would be a wall, but noted the issue to be considered was drainage of the area. Linke asked Mr. Keene if the only concern he had regarding this Wetland Alteration Permit was to assure the drainage off the two adjacent properties through this property and into the Wetland. Keene stated that was correct. Linke went on to ask if Keene felt there would be a problem with the house itself or the property itself, other than blocking that drainage area. Keene said there appears to be engineering solutions to all of the problems. Linke reminded the Councilmembers that the Wetlands and the drainage issues are what must be considered at this public hearing, not the home itself. The house would not negatively impact the Wetland. Trude expressed concern that the house would impact the Wetland because natural vegetation would be removed and landscaping soils would be put in. She questioned the impact of the driveway on the Wetlands. Keene explained that the purpose of a Wetland Buffer Zone was to protect the Wetlands. He felt that, in this case, the driveway would go through approximately 60 or 70 feet of buffer area and would not have a negative impact to the Wetlands because it was being buffered before it got to the Wetland. Trude pointed out that it appeared as though a sodded area bordered the Wetland itself which meant it would not be buffered. She was - concerned thatrunoff from the sodded area would not be _filtered before it entered the Wetland. Keene said the amount of sod to be permitted was something the City could direct by placing a contingency on the Resolution. Quick asked if the Buffer Zone had been established to act as a filtering system as well as to control development in that area. Keene said he had made an attempt to find the specific definition of the Buffer Zone, but past Ordinances were unclear in defining the specific purpose. Bill Frits, 8072 Long Lake Road, stated that he agreed with Mayor • Linke that over the years, the Wetlands and the Buffer Zones have gotten smaller. During the last 50 years that he has lived in the Mounds View City Council Page 13 • Regular Meeting December 12 , 1994 area, he has seen houses built on property where there was standing water before. He felt that it was the responsibility of this Council to ensure that the remaining Wetlands and Buffer Zones are protected. The financial responsibility will be determined by the Courts. He reminded Councilmembers that the issue to be decided is whether to adopt a Resolution approving a Wetland Alteration Permit. That is the only issue to be considered at this hearing. Linke expressed his appreciation to Mr. Frits for his comments. Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8: 56 p.m. Linke read Resolution No. 4671 noting that it contained an area for contingencies to be applied by the Council. Trude asked City Attorney Thomson if there was legal justification for denial of this Resolution. She would prefer not to have more construction, landscaping and sod go into an area within ten feet of this Wetland. Thomson advised that there were probably grounds adequate to support a denial of the Permit. The problem he foresaw was that, • by denying the property owner of all economically viable use of the property, the City may have to pay the fair market value of the property. Essentially, the City would be acquiring the property for a governmental purpose, i.e. expansion of the Wetland. The fair market value of the property is based on the particular lot and what it is worth--not what some other lots are worth. There would be substantial legal fees involved with this process. Trude requested City Consulting Engineer Keene to clarify his perspective on the issue. Keene stated that he felt the proposed development would not have an adverse_ effect to the Wetland. Thomson commented that his perspective of the issue was that if a Permit were to be granted, the Engineer would recommend conditions to be imposed. Therefore, there would be no impact to the Wetlands based on the conditions that were imposed. Blanchard felt there was a commitment to the Wetlands as well as a commitment to the citizens. MOTION/SECOND: Blanchard/Trude to Direct City Attorney and Staff to Prepare a Resolution for Denial of the Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit for Louis Downing, Woodale and Longview • Quick stated that by denying this Resolution, the City assumes the risk of being forced to buy the property. He cited three similar 4111 Mounds View City Council Page 14 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 instances in which the Council approved Wetland Alteration Permits. He felt that because of the similar instances, along with the fact that the City Consulting Engineer gave testimony that this development would not adversely impact the Wetland, the City could not legally justify this denial. Trude said that the Resolution should be drafted with very specific contingencies and she would like to have the input of Rice Creek Watershed District. Linke commented that he would be voting against this motion for the same reasons stated by Councilmember Quick. Linke also stated that the Staff and City Consulting Engineer should spend adequate time developing contingencies necessary for approval. Trude suggested that if a Resolution to deny the Permit passed, the City could then begin taking steps to acquire the property, thereby avoiding legal expenses. Councilmember Wuori stated that she was not in favor of denying the Permit because of the possibility of legal action. The Courts are not favorable to "takings" ; they are very much pro-ownership • throughout the country. Although the present laws are directed at protecting Wetlands, this is not a Wetland--it's a Buffer Zone and not a protected entity. She concurred that a better Resolution should be drafted with more specific contingencies. Wuori advised that she would be voting against the motion in its present form. Keene offered that this Wetland issue should be put off until spring because a field delineation cannot be performed until the snow is gone. Linke said that the issue of timing for building the house was not a consideration for granting the Alteration Permit. His only concern is to makethebest-decision -for-the Council,_ for the City, and for the property owner. Trude asked if a denial could be based on the fact that the applicant failed to provide adequate evidence to the City to support the granting of a Permit. The burden is on the applicant to supply the City with supporting evidence. Thomson replied that the obligation of the applicant was to comply with what Municipal Code requires them to submit in order to get the Permit. Harrington said that all documentation required from the applicant 411 had, in fact, been received. Mounds View City Council Page 15 • Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 VOTE: 2 ayes (Blanchard, Trude) 3 nays (Linke, Quick, Wuori) Motion Failed MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Quick to Table Consideration of Resolution No. 4671 Approving Request for Wetland Alteration Permit, Louis Downing, Woodale and Longview, Until Staff has Prepared the Specific Contingencies to be Contained in the Resolution VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Linke stated that the Resolution with all contingencies included would be presented at the Regular Council Meeting on December 19. COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 4685 Regarding Request for Development Review, Amoco Oil Company, 2155 Highway Avenue, Planning Case No. 402-94 Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, reported that Amoco Oil Company made application for a Development Review for a proposed addition to their facility at 2155 • Highway Avenue. They are seeking approval for a 320 square foot addition to be located on the southwest side of the existing building. This item must go through the development review process which requires that all commercial developments which are expanding be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council to ensure they are in compliance with all applicable City Codes. The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed this item and has recommended approval of the request. Harrington advised that he has prepared Resolution No. 4685 for Council's consideration. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Blanchard to Adopt Resolution No. 4685 Approving the Development Request of Amoco Oil Company, 2155 Highway Avenue, Planning Case No. 402-94 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried B. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 4686 Approving Feasibility Study and Plans and Specifications, Authorizing Execution of Petition and Waiver Agreement, Ordering Improvement Project No. 94-5 and Awarding Contract Therefor Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, explained that within the past two years, the City of Mounds View has been in the process of requiring all properties not hooked up to Municipal Sanitary Sewer to do so as required by City and • State Codes. The property located at 2748 County Road J has approached the City regarding the possibility of assessing the Mounds View City Council Page 16 • Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 charge for hook-up. This is the last remaining property in the City which is not hooked up to Municipal Sanitary Sewer. Harrington explained the documents and sketches which he had provided and felt that a special assessment for the project appeared to be the best alternative for bringing the property into conformance with the Municipal Codes. MOTION/SECOND: Blanchard/Wuori to Adopt Resolution No. 4686 Approving Feasibility Study and Plans and Specifications, Authorizing Execution of Petition and Waiver Agreement, Ordering Improvement Project No. 94-5, and Awarding a Contract Therefor VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried C. Consideration of Resolution No. 4688 Rescheduling City Council Meetings Falling on Legal Holidays Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, explained that traditionally the Council adopts a Resolution which schedules meetings for the upcoming year. Not only has the rescheduling • been done for legal holidays, but also for meeting dates that represent schedule conflicts. She cited the schedule for the months of March and December of 1995 which had been adjusted due to conflicts. Mayor Linke stated that September 25 should be rescheduled to September 26 due to Rosh Hashanah; also December 18 should be rescheduled to December 19 due to Hanukkah. He directed that those two dates be included in the Resolution. MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Blanchard to Adopt Resolution No. 4688 as Amended, Rescheduling City Council Meetings that Fall on Legal Holidays _ _ __ VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried D. Consideration of Resolution No. 4689 Requesting Independent School District 621's Financial Participation in the Construction of Flashing Speed Zone Reduction Lights on County_ Road I Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, reported that this Resolution had been prepared per Council direction at the December 5, 1994, Work Session. The Resolution addresses the request from the City Council for District 621 officials to enter into a cooperative partnership with the City to help finance the construction of flashing speed reduction lights on County Road I as an indication for drivers to slow down Mounds View City Council Page 17 4111 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 because of the school zone. The request presented to District 621 is for the cost to be shared equally between the City and the School District, each share amounting to $7, 000. Councilmember Trude expressed concern that the School District would deny the request to share the expense because that had been the custom historically. She asked what would be the strongest manner to ask for their help. Trude addressed any School Board Members that may be watching this Meeting to put some of their City and School District tax dollars into the flashing lights to improve the safety of the children coming and going to school. Wuori stressed the importance of these warning lights because of the high speed traffic coming off the freeway. MOTION/SECOND: Wuori/Trude to Adopt Resolution No. 4689 Requesting Independent School District 621's Financial Participation in the Construction of Flashing Speed Zone Reduction Lights on County Road I VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried • E. Consideration of Resolution No. 4691 Supporting the Reappointment of Samantha Orduno to the Pipeline Safety_ Advisory Council Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, explained that this Resolution was requested by the Pipeline Safety Advisory Council to be submitted with the application for reappointment. Orduno summarized the contents of Resolution No. 4691. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Blanchard to Adopt Resolution No. 4691 Supporting the Reappointment of Samantha Orduno to the Pipeline Safety Advisory Council VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried REPORTS 1. Report of Councilmembers: Councilmember Quick: No report. Councilmember Blanchard: No report. Councilmember Wuori: No report. • Councilmember Trude: No report. Mounds View City Council Page 18 Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 Report of Administrator: a. Samantha Orduno: No report. Report of Mayor Linke: a. Reported that there will be an open house for Councilmember Diane Wuori from 5:00 to 7: 00 p.m. on December 19, which is the date of the next Council Meeting. He invited all who are present at this meeting as well as all viewers. b. There will be a quorum for the Ramsey County League Meeting in Downtown St. Paul on Wednesday, December 14 . Linke will be sworn in as President of the Ramsey County League at that meeting and Diane Wuori will be awarded a plaque of gratitude from the League. c. There will be Council Meetings on January 9 and 23 , 1995, however, there will be no Work Sessions in January. Report of Staff: No report. • Mayor Linke announced the next Council Meeting will be December 19, 1994. The next Council Work Session will be February 6, 1995. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before this Council, Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 9: 25 p.m. Respectful)jj5 submitted, ( "\ ,(3L IJ dyRi er R condi g Secretary \ T1meSav r Off Site Secretarial •