Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1997/04/28• Page 1 Apn128, 1997 Mounds View City Council APP~~VED PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting Apri128, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m. on April 28,1997. . P DGE OF .LFG ANCE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty, Council members Trude, Quick, Koopmeiners and Stigney ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting, Clerk Administrator Cathy Bennett, EDA Director Bruce Kessel, Finance Director Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director Jim Ericson, Planning Associate Bob Long, City Attorney ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: Mr. Whiting stated he would like to give a brief update on the Anoka County Airport status. He noted that he has had discussions with Representative Evans regarding the city's frustrations with the Metropolitan Airport Commission and their development of a Comprehensive Plan. The City provided input and Public Hearings were to beheld in February or Maroh by MAC. Those. hearings have not been held yet. Two weeks ago, the Council met with a representative of MAC and since then the council has been checking to see what can be done legislatively. Some legislation was proposed and was approved last week Mr. Bob Long provided details on the amendment which basically states that the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall not expend any public funds for planning or construction of capital improvements at the • AnokaBlaine Airport that will in any way conflict with the July 28, 1986 court order. This is a house bill and the senate version does not contain the language so when it goes to the conference committee, the goal will be to keep the language in the house bill. Page 2 April 28, 1997 Mounds View City Council ~'~ ~. ~. ~~ ~ Mayor McCarty explained that the concern is that the Comprehensive Plan update for the airport (from the city's view) is in conflict with the 1986 Court Order that included some protection for the City of Mounds View. He noted that residents will be kept informed of the progress. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Apri114,1997 -City Council Meeting: MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Trude to Approve the Minutes of the April 14, 1997 City Council meeting as presented VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINU1'ES- Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -March 19,1997, Festival Committee Meeting Minutes -April 8,1997, Economic Development Commission MeetingMinutes -November 21,1996, January 21,1997, February 20,1997 and March 27,1997. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to accept the Advisory Commission Minutes as presented. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Resolution Na 5109, Proclaiming May 6,1997 as "Arbor Day". Mr. Whiting read Resolution 5109. CONSENT AGENDA• Mayor McCarty asked if there were any Council Members wishing to have any items removed from the Consent Agenda He requested that Items 8(B) end 8(C) be removed from the Consent Agenda MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Koopmeiners to approve the Consent Agenda, AS AMENDED. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mayor McCarty explained that Items 8 (B c~ C) were amendments to the Fire Protection Services Contract and approving a Letter of Understanding regarding the Joint Powers Agreement. He wondered if action is actually needed by the City Council on this issue. Mr. Nyle Zikmund, Fire Chief, explained that this decision could be made by the Council, however he felt the Council may want to approve the amendments it would bring the assets into the city's possession at the pro rata share. Mayor McCarty stated he is somewhat concerned about bringing MAC into the Fire Services Contracts in a more direct way than they have been in the past He would be willing to set the items before the Council aside • • Page 3 Apri128, 1997 Mounds View City Council ~ ~~~ and allow Chief Zikmund to make the decision which he believes is well within the JPA and our current service contract. He is hesitant to do anything with MAC until they come and talk to Mounds View about the ramifications of their current Comprehensive Plan Update. Attorney Long stated he would like to delay approval of those items until the next council meeting as well. He believes there is some language in the Joint Powers Agreement as far as coverage for the airport. Additionally, if the city is going to enter into a contract to receive a truck, they will likely need council authorization. Chief Zikmund stated his concern that council delays could result in delays in delivery of a new truck until next June or July. A discussion followed. Mr. Long noted that the Council could pass a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the appropriate amendment language to the Joint Powers Agreement, and the better of Understanding, subject to review. MOTION/SECOND: McCariy/frude to Authorize the Mayor and the City Administrator to execute the appropriate. amendment language to the Joint Powers Agreement and the Letter of Understanding, subject to review. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried • RFSIDE_N7'S REOL~STS COMMENTS FROM Fi.[~nR• Mayor McCarty noted that this is the period of time for residents to address the Council with comments or concerns on items that are not on the Agenda Leona Lodmill, 2349 Laport Drive, stated she had received a letter from the City of Mounds View in regard to the conditions of her property. City staff took pictures of her backyard (which is surrounded by a privacy fence) without her consent and she does not feel they have the right to do so. She feels she is being stalked. She explained that many of the conditions do exist, including the brush pile, and the tires. The motor home is atso in the back yard, however she was told that she did not need to license it if it was parked there. They had afire on the property and they are attempting to clean things out as they are able, however both her and her husband have health problems. She noted that the conditions are not visible to the neighbors as they are protected by a privacy fence. Mayor McCarty assured Ms. Lodmill that she was not being stalked. He explained that the City of Mounds View has ordinances in Mounds View regarding Nuisance Codes and those ordinances are merely being enforced under the law. Attorney Long explained that under the City's Nuisance Code and under the State Statutes, there is authority for cities to inspect and define public nuisances. It is not a constitutional issue for the city to be enforce it as long as they follow the procedures set forth in the ordinance. Mayor McCarty stated he would ask that an o$'icer be sent out to meet with Ms. I,odmill to go through the order to sort out what she feels are deficiencies in the order. After this is completed, the city will proceed • as necessary. Page 4 ~~ ~ Apri128, 1997 Mounds View City Council Bill Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, asked about the status of the Bel Rae. He asked if a report has been obtained from the architect as to the structural and environmental status of the building. He is concerned that the architect has an interest in the building and will basically tell the council what he feels they want to hear. He feels the city should obtain a detailed report including costs, etc. and that the city should hold them accountable to those cost estimates. Mayor McCarty explained that the costs are dependent upon market costs and therefore, very difficult to predict. The architects can only estimate what they think the costs will be. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Heating and First Reading of Ordinance Na 599, an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning from B- 2 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) !or commercial wes for property located southeast of the Highway 10lSilver Lake Road intersection (2704 - 2740 Highway 10 and 78015i1ver Lake Road). Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. Ms. Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director, provided a brief overview of the project. She noted that the action before council would be for a rezoning. This would be the public hearing for the rezoning, and if the council wished, they could approve the first reading of the ordinance. The second reading would take • place at the next council meeting. Ms. Sheldon outlined the Planned Unit Development process that is required She noted that the application is at a general concept plan stage and that this step allows the applicant to get a reading from the council and the community on whether there is agreement that this type of development should go forward, in general terms, before the applicant spends a lot of investment in engineering drawings and more detailed planning. This gives the community a chance to give input oa the types of uses and their approximate arrangement. She noted that she had outlined three different options for the council to review. These included: 1) that the Council conduct the Public Hearing, close the hearing and proceed to introduce the Ordinance for a first reading with an exhibit that would be attached to the ordinance that would have a detailed list of rules about what will happen at the next stage; 2) that the hearing be conducted, and continue it at another time, asking the applicant to get information on the wetland boundaries, the drainage design, whether the underground parking is feasible and do some additional design work before the first reading of the ordinance (which could be held at the first council meeting in June); 3) that the council deny the request and tell the applicant that they can re-apply when they get the additional information. Ms. Sheldon proceeded to outline areas of the ordinance including Exhibit 1 which lays out the rules the development would need to go by at the development stage and when it is actually constructed. Mr. Jim Ericson, Planning Associate, went through the discussion topics related to the development including the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Highway 10-Area 9 Study, the land uses, the tax impact of the project, the overall project design, access and on-site circulation, traffic study, the drainage plan, natural features and open space, encroachment into the Wetland Buffer, drainage and utility easements, parking, trash • disposal, snow storage, Site Improvement Agreement, and the effect on abutting properties. Page 5 Apri128, 1997 Mounds View City Council AP~~~~L~ Thomas Budzynski, TJB Homes, 2704 Highway 10, stated in 1987 he built his business and in the process, had water brought to his property from Silver Lake Road At that time, there were properly owners between himself and Silver Lake Road who were unhappy about having to pay for their share of the water. To avoid the time involved in a Special Assessment Hearing, he assumed the cost himself, however he was told by the City Administrator said that anytime anyone would hookup to that water line, the city would insure that he would be reimbursed for the cost of putting the water line in. (He believes the cost was approximately $6,300 per property.) He wanted to make sure that the city was aware of the situation and wants to be sure that he is reimbursed for that expense if the development proceeds as prol?o~ Mr. Whiting noted that this is not a standard way of completing a public improvement. Mayor McCarty stated the council would receive his comments as a part of the Public Hearing and would have staff investigate fiuther. George Winikky, 2732-2740 Highway 10, stated in 1987 he talked with city staff about this very issue. He was left with a compelling feeling that he would have to pay for the cost of the water line if he hooked up to it. Mike Black, of Royal Oaks Realty, a representative of the development team was present and introduced all • parties involved in the development project. He stated they understand that in the council's consideration of the PUD Concept Plan, the city is not locking into any specific detailed plan and noted that more detail will be done at the development stage. He would like to request that the City Council consider the first option Ms. Sheldon outlined. He stated they would work diligently on addressing the issues of concerns expressed by the city to bring forth a project that the city would be proud of. Mayor McCarty asked if they could respond to all of the city's concerns by May 18th if the council were to adopt Option # 1. Mr. Black stated he believed this could be done. Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, stated he is not sure that this plan would fit into the future plans for Highway 10. He has some concern with the proposed gas station. He would much rather see a business park development than a development whose occupants would provide only minimum wage jobs. With no fiuther comments, Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:26 p.m. COUNCIL BUSINESS• D. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance Na 599, an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning from B-2 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for commercial uses for property boated southeast of Highway 10/Silver Lake Road intersection (2704-2740 Highway 10 and 7801 Silver Lake Road). Council member Trude asked if a Wetland Delineation has been done on the property. Mr. Black noted that two Wetland Delineation's have been done, the most recent was done in 1992. However a third delineation could be done as a part of the development stage. Council member Trude asked if they have looked at the 100 year water mark for the proposed underground • parking facility. Mr. Black stated this has been looked at in a very general way and that it would be looked at more thoroughly at the development stage. Page 6 ~ ~ - ~ r_. • Apri128, 1997 Mounds mew City Council Mayor McCarty reminded residents that the Planaed Unit Development is a cooperative effort and that the city cannot demand anything, it is merely a negotiatiau process. He suggested that Options #1 and #2 be combined, striking the first sentence in Option #2, and including the remainder of Option #2, thereby approving the first reading of the ordinance and scheduling the second reading when every one is ready. He stated he would like to formalize the "laundry list" and incorporate it a second motion indicating that all of this is to be supplied by the applicant by May 16, 1997. Council member Stigney felt by approving the lution, the council would be approving the general concept of the plan. He has some concerns in doing this. Mr. Long noted that if the council is not satisfied with the developer's response to the issues by the second reading, the council would have the discretion to not approve the ordinance. This would not lock the council into approving the project. It would only give indication that the council wants them to proceed to the second stage. Council member Stigney stated he would favor Option #3. Council member Trvde wondered if this was too intense of a development for the site to provide for storm water run off and adequate parking. Ms. Sheldon noted that after the additional information is obtained, the layout may need to be adjusted downward. The Council could note that they would like to see a revised site layout that reflects this information and adjusbmeat to the density if needed as insurance. Council member Trude asked if the State Highway Department would give three access points. Ms. Sheldon stated she talked with Bill Keen who saw the proposed plan as an improvement to the existing situation. Ms. Trude stated she would like to keep a very close eye on the traffic flow for the development because she feels this is a very important issue. MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Koopmeiners to Approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. 599, an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning from B-2 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for commercial uses for property located southeast of the Highway 10/Silver Lake Road intersection. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty aye Council member Trude aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Council member Stigney nay Council member Quick nay Motion Carried (3-2) MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/frude that the requirements of Options #1 and #2 be combined for fiuther study and that these be accomplished before the second reading , that a traffic study be conducted and that review of the applicant's submittal be completed by a design consultant. • Council member Stigney stated he feels perhaps the city is overlooking the U of M Study on the Highway 10 • Corridor. He feels that the city should wait to see what they recommend before proceeding with the project. He has concerns about another car wash/gas station/fast food right across the street from another. Pagel ~ ~~ ~f • A ri128 1997 ~ ~ P Mounds View City Council Mayor McCarty stated he has a copies of the Section 9 Study, the Comprehensive Plan and the Highway 10 shady. These are the city's dreams, however, his intentions as well as the others in the city, in terms of what they want the community to be, must be weigh with the full knowledge of their constitutional rights in the hands of property owners. The city cannot tell owners what they are going to put on their property, and they can only negotiate through the PUD process. MOTION by Stigney to amend the previous motion that the results of the Highway 10 U of MN Corridor Study be addressed prior to the second reading of ce No. 599. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. Joanne Meyers, Silver Lake Wood Townhomes, ted she had concerns with traffic problems which may occur with those who are attempting to make a left hand turn off of Highway 10 to the gas station during rush hour traffic. She also is concerned about the wetlands. She felt a lot of drainage off the area would affect the wetland She wondered if caning change could change the type of traffic in the area. Dan Moon, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, asked why Senior Citizen housing was being proposed when there is a large senior complex being constructed on Highway 10 in Spring Lake Park Mayor McCarty noted that there is a high demand for that type of housing in the area. John Adair of Faegre & Bensoq stated he is somewhat concerned about the 120 day limitation. He feels the • city should proceed with a second reading and count on the Exhibit 1 as addressing all of the concerns which must be satisfied before the development stage is approved. Mayor McCarty stated noted that the Ordinance cannot even be enforced unti160 days have passed under the Charter requirements, He views the motion as a double check to see that those concerns are indeed addressed. He also is concerned about the 120 daytime limit Attorney Long noted that what the Council is being asked to do is an alternative method of considering reaoning. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried PUB .i(' HF,ARiNiGS -con •nued• First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance No. 600, to Consider Amending the Assessment Policy. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 9:15 p.m Mike Ulrich, Public Works Director, explained that at the Apri17,1997 City Council Work Sessioq several revisions were recommended to the assessment policy. He noted that the primary revisions are for the storm sewer assessment and one revision to the assessment for corner industrial and commercial property. He noted that copies of the excerpts of the assessment policy were included in the agenda packets. He proceeded to go through the changes. Gregg Lien, Midway Industrial Supply, stated they would be dramatically affected by the Ordinance as it now stands, as they have frontage on Mustang. They do not rely on traffic coming off Mustang, therefore • the frontage would be of no benefit to them He urged the Council to consider the new amended ordinance. Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 9:24 p.m Page 8 ` ~ ~ ~ '~~. ~' Apri128, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/5ECOND: Tnide/Quick to approve Introduction of Ordinance 600, to Consider Amending the Assessment Policy. ~ ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty aye Council member Stigney ~ aye Council member Quick aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Council member Trude aye Motion Carried (S-0) Continuation otl'ublic Hearing and Consideration otResolution No. 5114, Regarding Modifications of the Devebpment Plan for the Mounds Vier Economic Devebpment Project and a Tai Increment Financing Plan for Ta=Increment District Na 4. Mayor McCariy opened the Public Hearing at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Whiting noted that this was a continuation of the Public Hearing held on April 14, 1997 regarding the Bel Rae T1F District No. 4. He introduced Dave Maroney of Community Partners, Inc. who was present to review the plan with the Council. He went through the five exhibits in the TIF plea He noted that there is nothing in the document that rnstricts the term of the district if it is created. This is a proposed redevelopment district and the duration cannot exceed 25 years. Attorney Long noted that Resolution No. 5114 approves the TIF plan for District No. 4. Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 9:45 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No. 5114, Approving Modification of the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and Approving the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carved COUNCIL BUSINESS• E. Consideratlon of Resolution No. Slll, Supporting Subsidized Housing Units in Mounds View as part of the Proposed Silver Lake Commons lkvebpment. F. Consideration of Resolution No. 5112 Supporting the Ramsey County's Allocation of Home Funds to MSP Real Estate for the Significant Rehabilitatbn ot40 Apartment Units boated at 2665 Highway 10. Ms. Bennett, EDA Director, briefly reviewed the proposed Silver Lake Commons project. She noted that Resolution 5111 would support the setting aside of subsidized housing units through the Holman Decree for the proposed Silver Lake Commons. Undet this funding, three units would be set aide for existing Mounds View residents who receive rent subsidies. The remaining seven units would be made available to applicants • ~J • Page 9 Apnl28, 1997 Mounds View City Council p C q from the Minneapolis Public Housing waiting lisle The second resolution would be in support of the Ramsey County Home Funds for the rehabilitation portio~ of this project. If this resolution is not approved, the funds would not be set aside for Mounds View. Ms. Bennett explained that she has discussed oth~ options with MSP in regard to the rental units, however there is concern that it would affect the financial feasibility of the project. She has also contacted both a commercial and residential developer to obtain 'opinion of the site. The residential developer felt a housing development would work on the site: Commercial developer, however was concerned about the condition of the existing apartment as well as about access off of Highway 10 or Eastwood Ms. Bennett noted that the Economic Development Commission reviewed the concept for this project and passed a resolution on a 6-0 vote as follows: "General support for MSP Real Estate's concept proposal as it pertains to the rehabilitation of Red Oak Apartments and construction of 26 new townhomes. This support is limited to the concepts and land use but there needs to be further evaluation with regards to the management company aad financial analysis. Therefore, not comfortable with a recommendation to support the use of tax increment financing at this time". She noted that the EDC requested that this item be brought back at the May meeting and directed the staff to • get some background regarding the management company and the information analyzed by our tax increment consultant. Ms. Bennett reminded the Council that these resolutions would allow the applicants to enter the annual funding cycle at the public agencies. Ms. Bennett noted an amendment to Resolution No. 5111 and 5112. The final paragraph in Resolution 5111 should be changed to read, "NOW BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED, that ......between the City of Mounds View, the Mounds View Economic Development Authority and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority ......." The final paragraph in Resolution No. 5112 should be changed to read, "NOW THEREFORE BE Tf RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View, and the Mounds View Economic Development Authority hereby endorse .... ". Milo Pinkerton, President of MSP Real Estate explained that the present condition of the apartment complex on the site is one of considerable defenred maintenance, numerous police calls, physical deterioration of the parking lot, etc. The land next to the apartment site has been For Sale for a number of years and he feels part of the problem in selling the land is the poor access to the site. He feels their proposal is of the quality that the neighbors will want in that area. They have obtained resident input in the area and have taken their comments into consideration. Peter Bister, of PBDB Architects in Minneapolis presented a diagram of the proposed project. He provided information in regard to the improvements to the existing building as well as descriptions of the proposed townhomes. He also noted changes that have been made to the parking areas and more landscaping added A one-half acre play area was also added which borders Eastwood Road and will serve both the apartment buildings and the proposed townhomes. . Jeff Hugget of MSP Real Estate discussed the input they had received from residents in the area. He noted that many were initially opposed to the proposal, but after obtaining fiuther information, they were in favor of the Page 10 April 28, 1997 Mounds View City Council R .~ , ~_ t : . ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ added improvements. He provided informatia~n in regard to the proposed monthly rents for the units, noting that they would range from $509/month for a one bedroom unit to $720/month for a four bedroom unit Lori DanZeisen, President of DanZeisen Properties, was present to provide information in regard to management of the property. Marie Donahue, 2622 Lake Court Drive, stated she is aware that managers and owners of rental units often don't have any rights when it comes to rental eater tions, etc. She wondered how Ms. DaaZ,eisen would be able to overcome this. i Ms. DanZeisen explained that she has a detailed screening process that she goes through and feels that it provides the information necessary in making decisions in the selection process. Council member Stigney asked if the triangular single family Property would require rezoning as well. Mr. Pinkerton stated they would propose that the R-1 zoning on that property would be included in the PUD. They are planning to keep the single family home there. Council member Trude asked how many residents they anticipate in the entire development She wondered how this may impact the schools. Mr. Pinkerton stated he thinks a majority of the units will be filled by Mounds View residents as there are no other rental townhomes in Mounds View. Arnold Winters, 7831 Sunnyside Road stated his property abuts the proposed development on two sides. He would like to see the property improved and is is favor of the proposed development Mike Coon, 7851 Eastwood Road, stated he does not think residents across the street will want to look out to the two-story townhomes. Additionally, he heard that the developers plan to use the single family home as a rental office. This would increase the traffic in the area and affect the property values in the area as well as child safety. Mr. Pinkerton explained that the house will not be a rental office. There would be no access onto Eastwood, therefore he cannot anticipate a traffic increase there. Mike Strauss, 7830 Eastwood Rd., stated he is opposed to tripling the number of people on the block by building high density housing there. Additionally, he wondered why the city couldn't force the landlord of the Property to make improvements. Attorney Long explained that in order to force a landlord to make improvements, they would need to determine that the property failed to meet housing code. He noted that approving the resolutions would only preserve options and would allow the city to go forward. They do not obligate the city in any way. Council member Trude stated she does not like the process of proceeding any further without community input Mayor McCarty stated this does not tie the city into proceeding if they later determine that it is not in the best interests of the community. • • Page 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ t • A pn128, 1997 Mounds View City Council ~ MOTION/SECOND: McCartyy/Quick to Approve Resolution No. 5111, Supporting Subsidized Housing Units in Mounds View as part of the Proposed Silver Lake Commons Development VOTE: 3 ayes- 2 nays (StigpeylTrude) Motion Carved MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Quick to approv Resolution No. 5112, Supporting the Ram.4ey County's Allocation of Home Funds to MSP Real Estate fa~ the Significant Rehabilitation of 40 Apartment Units Located at 2665 Highway 10. VOTE: 3 ayes 2 nays (Stigney/Trude) Motion Carved Council member Trade again stated she did not approve of the process and aiso is opposed to placing a large number of families on a heavily traveled road. A. Discussion Regarding Employee Position Benchmark Service Providers. MOTION by Stigney to continue using PDI as it is less expensive and will achieve the same results. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. • MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to convert to the HAY job evaluation system. Council member Trvde stated she had talked with staff in regard to the cost issue and feels that when one considers the staff time in preparing the PDI, it ends up costing more. Council member Stigney stated this is contrary to what he has heard. The basis of cost is $35/person under PDI, versus $175/person under HAY. If the city wants Labor Relations to come in to alleviate spending staff time, they can do so. VOTE: 4 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried B. Introduction of Ordinance No. 601, Amending Chapter 502, Subd. 502.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to Intoxicating liquor license Hearing requirements. Mr. Whiting explained that this is an amendment which would eliminate the hearing requirements for license renewal since there is ample opportunity have heard of problems prior to licensing renewal. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. 601, Amending Chapter 502, Subd. 502.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to Intoxicating Liquor License Hearing requirements, and to waive the reading. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Council member Quick aye Council member Stigaey aye • Council member Trade aye Motion Carried (5-0) Page 12 April 28, 1997 Mounds mew City Council y ~ ~ ~ i A r 1 i • •• C. Consideration of Resolution 5110, EstabWhing a Munkipal State Aid Street. Mike Ulrich explained that in conjunction with the Ramsey County Turnback Program, all turnback roads are eligible for state aid status. Spring Lake Road is scheduled to be turned back in 1997 and Resolution 5110 will establish this designation. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Approve Resolution NO.5110, Establishing a Municipal State Aid Street. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried G Opportunity for Hearing and Consideratbn of Resolution No. 5115, a Resolution Authorizing Abatement of Nuisances at 8217 Long Lake Road. Mr. Ericson explained that this property is in violation of the Mounds view Municipal Code pertaining to nuisances. He noted the violations and presented photographs depicting such. MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No. 5115, a Resolution Authorizing Abatement of Nuisances at 8217 Long Lake Road VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried IL Consider motion approving a aettkmeat agreement with TR Syatema, LLC !or the purchase of accounting sotitware and authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to enter into said agreement for and on behalf of the City. L Consider motion approving a contract with Tangea Redpath to conduct the annual audit for the year ended December 31, 1996. Mr. Whiting explained that these are related to the discussion the City Council had at their recent work session regarding the possibility of pending litigation. Mr. Long explained that the motion in Item H will approve or authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to enter into a settlement agreement. The city would be refimded a portion and a portion would be retained. by them to cover their costs of time and material. This is an acceptable arrangement to them. The second motion would be to go out and finish off the 1996 audit with the firm. The second motion is therefore contingent upon the first. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to Approve the Settlement Agreement with TR Systems. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: QuickrTrude to approve a contract with Tauges Redpath to conduct the annual audit for the year ended December 31, 1996. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried REPORTS• • • t t fy • Page 13 Apri128, 1997 Mounds View City Council . • • Report of Con 1 membera• ~i g;, No repork Koopmeiners: No report. Stisnev: No report. Quick: No report. Report of Mavor McCarty Mayor McCarty stated he had a conversation with Diane Kline who is working on Flood Relief activities and donations. She knows of someone who. has a truck going to North Dakota every day and they are need of cleaning supplies, personal care items, etc. If aay residents wish to contribute items and are unable to get them to the drop off point, they can bring them to City Hall. He also read a letter that the city received from a teacher at Pinewood Elementary who extended their appreciation of DARE officers Tim Brennen, Tom Baumgart and Bob Nelson. Mayor McCarty noted that he has had responses from citizens on the coverage of the warning siren system in the Northeast part of the city. He asked if staff would check into this. Report of Clerk Ad ini+tr9r...» ~, Whiting ~~ he has had meetings with the Children's Home Society about their use of the Bel Rae building. The city wi11 need to proceed with specifics on the design criteria prior to reaching an agreement with them He is talking with them about establishing an escrow account. He also will be meeting with the Community Education Department this week He noted that an agreement was signed by the architect with some minor amendments. Report of Staff• No report. Report otAttornev: No report. Mayor McCarty noted that the next Council Work Session will beheld on May S, 1997 at 6:00 p.m The next Council Meeting is on May 12,1997 at 7:00 p.m Mayor McCarty adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m Respectfully sub fled, ~~~ ~~Q~/~~- Tamara D. Saefke Recording Secretary MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please sign NAME ADDRESS a~r,~ ~ ~~ ~n ^ ~s / / ' ~1 ~3 _~ ,~ ~ C ,. .1 ~, ~~ 1~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. s ~ ~ ~~ ~-~ h ~ . ~~~ ., ~~~~ /l L ~ r UJ / //'Y r-~/ .'/ V /~ 2/ ~ \J~//'~. ~l+ ~.d 1 L (~ rJ ~~ 1 D f~//~ ~ .-~~"'.GUS7'~" ilIQZ_ ~,~.c ~'~(.-% '' t ~~ U t~ 1