Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1997/09/22 Page 1 September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council APPROVED PROCEEDINGS OF THE C1TY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, bIINNE50TA • Regular Meeting September 22,1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 551 l2 ********************************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m. on September 22, 1997. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty, Council members Koopmeiners, Quick and Stigney ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting, Clerk Administrator Jim Ericson, Planning Associate Bruce Kessel, Finance Director Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Bob Long, City Attorney ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: Mayor McCarty asked that one item be added to the Agenda, under Council Business, 11(D) Consideration of Resolutions 5111 and 5112. Council member Stigney asked that one item be added to the Agenda, under Council Business 11(C)(1) Discussion of Interim Ordinance that excludes granting any new residential building permits in the Highway 10 Corridor. September 8,1997 -City Council Meeting: . Page 2 September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve the minutes of the September 22, 1997 City Council meeting as presented. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMLSSION MIN~UTE3: None SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Proclamation declaring the week of October 5 - 11,1997 as "Cities Wyk". Mr. Whiting noted that the city will recognize the week of October 5 - 11, 1997 as "Cities Week". B. Proclamation declaring the week of October 14 -18,1997 as Manufacturing Week in the Cities of Mounds View and New Brighton. Mr. Whiting read this proclamation. CONSENT AGENDA• MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve the Consent Agenda as presented m wntu-g. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mayor McCarty explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with concerns on items that are not on the Agenda. Bill Fritz, 8072 Long Lake Road, noted that there was nothing on the Agenda in regard to the upcoming budget. Mayor McCarty stated he would be sure to notify Mr. Fritz of the upcoming budget hearings. William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, asked how many owner-occupied dwelling units are in the City of Mounds View and how many rental dwelling units are in Mounds View? This information was not readily available, however the Mayor and staff stated they would get that information to him. None A. Presentation of a Residential Survey for the Reconstruction of Spring Lake Road. • Mr. Ulrich gave a brief introduction to the project. He explained that on June 24, 1997, the City of Mounds View presented a proposed project for the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road and County Road I. At that . Page 3 September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council meeting, approximately 90 residents attended (over 450 flyers were sent out notifying residents of the meeting). Several things were discussed at the informational meeting including the possibility of MSA funding and status on both Spring Lake Road and County Road I and what the standards for the construction were in regard to street width, etc. Other issues discussed were the city's trailways plan, the current assessment policy, funding sources (including tumback funds). The residents were asked at that meeting if there was any street width preference - 26 feet wide with no parking on either side, 32 feet wide with parking on one side, or 38 feet wide with parking on both sides. A second meeting was held on August 19th, and Barry Peters, Project Manager with SEH, used the existing city policy and an estimated cost on a 32 foot wide street to put together some mock assessments of the project. Many issues were brought up at the meeting and Ms. Haake volunteered to get together with some of the neighborhood residents and present a survey to the affected residents on the various questions. Ms. Hawke presented a copy of the survey results to members of the City Council as well as a copy of the questionnaire that was distributed. The majority of residents wanted the repair or resurfacing of the road, and 58% wanted a 26 - 28 foot wide road. Forty percent desired a 30 foot wide road. Fifty-six percent wanted a curb installed, 44% did not want a curb installed. An overwhelming 86% of the residents did not want the sidewalk trailway. If a painted trailway were proposed, they would only want it on one side. Eighty-nine percent of the residents have specifically asked for the tumback money and the MSA funds to be applied to the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road and County Road I. . Ms. Haake explained that she had called some road re-surfacing companies. Residents have been told that they can expect to pay approximately $40.30/running foot for the roadway. For two miles of roadway with a nine ton capacity, no curb and gutter, 26 feet wide, asphalt roadway with 25-30 year durability, she was given three estimates. These came in at $200,000, $225,000 and $290,000 (to reclaim and resurface). The Ramsey County turnback funds are $580,000. Ms. Haake stated for that amount, everything should be able to be done. She noted that she did talk with a civil engineering firm that specializes in watershed, water quality/quantity issues to ask about curb and gutter. There is some feelings that if water is allowed to run off the road naturally, there is a process in which that water can be cleaned and of good water quality. If the turnback funds were applied to this type of project, MSA funds would not need to be used at all and the residents would not have to pay for it. Ms. Mary Mahick, 8289 Spring Lake Road, was present and talked about the turnback money issues. She explained that when the city calculates the assessments, the turnback money is never entered into that assessment. The assessment policy states that the residents must bear one-half of the total cost of the construction. Because no credit is being given for the turnback money, the residents end up paying for improvements that are already paid for by Ramsey County. She feels this is unfair. She would like to see the tumback funds taken off the top of the construction costs. When one goes back to what Ramsey County is giving for this project, residents are losing $290,000. She feels this issue needs the Council's attention. As the policy is set up now, the residents are not seeing any monetary benefits from the turnback funds. Ms. Mahick noted that she called several other communities to see what there policy is. She found that other communities assess well below the 50% fee. She asked that the Council review the assessment policy to see if changes are appropriate. Mike Hegland, 7604 Spring Lake Road, explained that the residents are generally happy with the size of the road as it is now. Smaller roads limit the amount of traffic and keep the neighborhood more desirable. With regard to the sidewalks/trailways, the residents felt it takes a large amount of the property to add these things in. • It adds maintenance issues and very little benefit (except on County Road I where there is already an • Page 4 September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council established trailway that the city can hook up to). The residents want to know why the turnback money is not applied to the project. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, wondered if the Resolution establishing the road requirements in Mounds View was still in place. Mayor McCarty stated this is still part of the policy and that the minimum road width in Mounds View is 30 feet. Mr. Jahnke wondered if the policy would need to be changed. Mayor McCarty stated he believes the Council could authorize that project by their majority motion and he does not believe the policy binds the Council in a legal fashion. However, he would encourage the council to review the policy to see if changes need to be made. Brian Kaden, 7675 Spring Lake Road, stated he lives on the corner of the Spring Lake Road/County Road I intersection. He stated he has observed that less than 50% of the drivers ever acknowledge the stop signs on the corner. Something needs to be done as this tends to be a confusing intersection. Perhaps the city could paint a cross walk for the kids so that they can cross the road to go to the lake. Cameron Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, stated he was against the standard road width of 30 feet. The wider the streets are made, the faster the cars travel. He feels the City Council needs to review the standard road width and look at how the assessments are made for mad reconstruction or road improvements. All streets in the city age and need repair and he is not sure that it is fair for Ramsey County funds to be applied only to County Roads. Mayor McCarty stated that County roads do take a lot of collector and bus traffic. It was generally felt that the county should pay for the county roads because they serve a county purpose. While the turnback program is bringing those county roads back into the authority of the city, Mayor McCarty stated he does not see the function changing that greatly. Mayor McCarty suggested that the Council take the assessment policy under advisement at their earliest opportunity. It was suggested that this be done at the October 6th Work Session, along with the feasibility study. Mayor McCarty stated he would like to get more information on the project itself prior to that meeting. B. (1.) Consideration of Resolution No. 5165, Resolution Designating Mounda View City Hall as the Temgorat Polling Location for the November 4,1997 Special Election. Mr. Kesel noted that the Bel Rae Ballroom is presently undergoing construction and therefore the polling place will need to be changed. A mailing will be sent out to all registered voters notifying them of this change. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No. 5165, Resolution Designating Mounds View City Hall as the Temporary Polling Location for the November 4, 1997 Special Election. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carved B. Consideration of Resolution No. 5163, Approving the Refinancing of the 1991)N~re Bonds. Mr. Kesel noted that in 1991 the City of Mounds View, along with the cities of Blaine and Spring Lake Park issued a joint bond issue to pay for improvements at several of the fire hall locations. Over the past several years there has been a change in the bond markets and at this point it would be advantageous for the city to refinance. Based upon the bids that came in, the estimated savings for the City of Mounds View would be approximately $318,000, which will be recognized in the years 2001 through 2012. Page 5 September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve Resolution No. 5163, Approving the Refinancing of the 1991 Fire Bonds. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried C. (1) Consideration of Interim Ordinance that Eacludea Granting Any New Residential Building Permits in the Highway 10 Corridor. Council member Stigney explained that this is a result of many resident's requests to not have any more housing on Highway 10. An initiative is being circulated to put this on the ballot, or a referendum to change some of the residential zoning on Highway 10 to business use. Mr. Stigney stated he feels it would be considerate far the Council to consider adopting an interim ordinance of this type until such time as the council can consider some of the requests of the residents. Attorney Long noted that there is a provision in the statutes in Chapter 462 that allows for an interim ordinance to be adopted by the City Council that would place a moratorium on certain types of uses as long as it is done in conjunction with a valid zoning study. If this were to take place, the Planning Commission would need to consider it, and hold a public hearing. An ordinance would need to be draped. • Mayor McCarty noted that the City currently has at least one P.U.D. in process on County Road I and Silver Lake Road. He wondered how this maybe impacted. Attorney Long noted that it could potentially be affected. The Council could develop an ordinance, however that would only apply prospectively. Mayor McCarty noted that this type of Ordinance would put things on hold for up to one year. He wondered if this would be a positive move as there are a number of residents who are against rezoning the property to business use. MOTION by Stigney to duect staff to prepare an Interim Ordinance that Excludes Granting Any New Residential Building Permits in the Highway 10 Corridor. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. C. Conaiderat~n of Resolution No. 5154, a Resolution Approving the Devebpment Review Request of M5P Real Estate for the Properties Located at 2637 - 2665 Highway 10. Mr. Ericson explained that MSP Reat Estate is requesting approval of a revised Development Review for the Silver Lake Commons Project. He provided a brief summary of the project. Mr. Ericson noted changes that had made to the Resolution since the last council meeting. It was noted that the applicant has met all ordinance requirements. MOTION by Stigney to postpone Consideration of Resolution No. 5154, until the referendum issue is resolved. Mary Amirahmadi, 8330 Eastwood Road, stated she believed the petition for an initiative for rezoning and the petition for the referendum could be completed by the next Council Meeting on October 13, 1997. . MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. Page 6 September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve Resolution No. 5154, a Resolution Approving the Development Review Request of MSP Real Estate for the Properties Located at 2637 - 2665 Highway 10. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carved D. Consideration of Resolution No. 5162, a Resolution Approving the Minor Subdivision Request of MSP Real Estate for the Properties Located at 2637-2645 Highway 10. Mr. Ericson explained that MSP Real Estate is requesting approval of a minor subdivision for the properties located at 2637 - 2645 Highway 10 to combine the two vacant parcels to form one taxable parcel and to eliminate the interior lot line. The applicant will pay a park dedication fee of $7,500, representing 10% of the fair market value of the land. This will be paid prior to building permits being obtained for the development. He explained that staff has requested that an easement be dedicated for drainage and utility purposes on the combined lot along the property lines and recorded with Ramsey County. Additionally a shared access driveway easement will need to be recorded prior to the placement of signatures onto the Certificate of Survey. These easements have been prepared and are in the hands of the City Attorney. Attorney Long noted that the applicant has met all requirements of the codes and State Laws and that the easements are ready to be executed. MOTION by Stigney to postpone consideration of Resolution No. 5162 until the October 13, 1997 Council meeting to allow residents the opportunity to gather signatures for their petitions. Mayor McCarty stated he would like to rule that motion Out of Order as there had already been a vote on that suggestion and it is redundant and not serving these proceedings. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No. 5162, a Resolution Approving the Minor Subdivision Request of MSP Real Estate for the Properties Located at 2637 - 2645 Highway 10. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carved Mayor McCarty explained that there were porkions of Resolution No. 5111 that no longer applied to the project so staff was requested to make necessary revisions. Attorney Long explained that two conditions in Resolution No. 5111 adopted on Apri128, 1997 are no longer applicable because the development has changed in scope and scale. The new Resolution deletes Conditions 1 and 2 from the previous resolution. This Resolution will be temporarily identified as Resolution No. 9-22-97. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No. 9-22-97. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried Mayor McCarty asked what Mr. Pinkerton, President of MSP Real Estate, would be expecting of the City of Mounds View, the Economic Development Authority and the Minneapolis Pubic Housing Authority in Resolution No. 5111. Mr. Pinkerton explained that this is a cooperation agreement/joint powers agreement. The joint powers agreement would allow the City of Mounds View varying degrees of involvement. Other cities have agreed to be a part of the Joint Powers Agreement in signature, but have required that all of the work be done by MPI3A. Page 7 September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council If the city wanted more involvement and to set up a committee they could do so. It would entail the review of documents, however the city could essentially do nothing after signing the agreement. It is simply a formality that MPHA goes through. E. Second Reading and Consideration of Ordinance Na 603, an Ordinance Amending Section 10115.12 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled "Housing Code". MOTIONISECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to Approve the Adoption of Ordinance No. 603, an Ordinance Amending Section 1005.12 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled "Housing Code" and to waive the reading. Mr. Ericson gave a brief summary of Ordinance No. 603. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Council member Stigney aye Council member Quick aye Ordinance Approved (4-0) REPORTS: Report of Council members: Koopmeinera: No report. Stigney: No report. Quick: No report. Mayor McCarty: Mayor McCarty noted that he had received a copy of a memo in regard to the 118/New County Road J/Long Lake RoadlRed Oak intersection. Apparently there was an agreement that if certain traffic levels were exceeded, Mounds View could remove that section between the City of Mounds View and the southern border of the highway even though it was located in Anoka County. However neither Anoka County or the State of Minnesota are a part of that agreement. Also, the west-bound left hand turn lane would need to be re configured for safety as well as many other things need to be considered. He would like to begin the necessary process by contacting other involved agencies. Report of Clerk Administrator: Mr. Whiting noted that a budget workshop meeting would be held on September 29, 1997 at 6 p.m. Report of Staff: No report. Report of Attorney: Attorney Long noted that a meeting of the Metropolitan Airports Commission Planning Committee will beheld to discuss the proposed changes at the Anoka County Airport on October 7th Page 8 September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council at 1 p.m. There will also be a meeting on Tuesday, September 30th at 10:00 a.m. with Senator Novak at his office. MOTION/SECOND: KoopmeinerslQuick to adjourn the Council meeting at 8:55 p.m. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Respectfully submitted, Tamara D. 5aefke Recording Secretary • • MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~l~as~ ~~, ~~ Please sign ~~, /~~ NAME ADDRESS ~~ ~_~ ~" r_r ~a~t `~~. r .~ t. ~ c~1. V{ C~ ~ ~-e ~ ~~ 0 d ~ ~ r t'1 d ~ ~° ~2~°( ~ ~"~ ~O SPR /ti ~ z /~ ~ ~ O / ~ `"` , -, ~~ ' ~ ~~ C iwl ~' r 7 b~ Sh ~ri.~r ua~ ~ , m~ ~~ ~ c~aJ S Y ~ .~ rN~ ~ ~:!~. ~u s; E~ t.~. /too 2.0 ~T~c~ a~.~G ~1, ~~~ ~~~ ~" Z °~.~`~ ~ e,>~~~ Vim. ~~ ~ 1 ~ .~ ~~~ c _ _ dd~~ 11l~ 1 ~ ~~ ~. ._ . ~ ~`..~ . j~ ~i ~ (,.,2.~~-- MOUl~TDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING • Please sign NAME ADDRES S ~- ~~y~-e~~ ~ - $ ~ ~ _ ~ .: ~,~ ~ f ,~ ~ , ,'~ ~ - ~ ~~ .~.'~- 1~ t. ~ r- ~ ..~t ~,,,. G; ~,. / ~ f z- /rio~ ~S c~-~~ .~ ' L . s~~ ~~~ 5 ~ ` d LK Red . ~~S~ry~ ~~ ~~~~ ~`3..1~ S rin L,~ ~d! ~//r/ ~'~f1s ~O C' .~ /.~ .S ~' ~.- (.7 ~ ~ r G ~~/cam ~p 1/x-0 r ~~Q r d CC.~. Off- 7 -~-~"'; p` ~~~M n } (/l/fit /~//! ~ ~~ ~ (~ /Vl' - l ~ ~ld- ~~ ~ ~'wVIYVVIUL~./l ' ~ ~°'~f~- 4~ ~ µt~~ J ~n K~ Y ~~ ? .. Z' I7iT~t-SGT (. ~~U ~/ ~~~~ e ~~ /~ ^ ~ .~~ ,~~~Ar ~~n ~~ , 7~ ' ~~~~ k~ ., MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING • Please sign NAME ADDRESS ` ~ t ~ ~ GZ~~ ~ ~~ Cam. ~~5i lr- ~ d ~ .~ t ~~,.~,.- ,~~~ _ _. _, 'u ~ ,r .__ r V ~.~ _ / - ~. ~ z,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~C ( Y ~~ ~r.tin. a .~ 0 4~c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,v ~ J , ,~ . Imo. ~.e f Z~~ n .i \s'~ ~