Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1997/10/27• t . Page 1 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA • • Regular Meeting October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 *~******************************************************s************************* CALL TO ORDER The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m. on October 27,1997. PLEDGE ~F ALLEG C ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty, Council members Koopmeiners, Quick and Stigney ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting, Clerk Administrator Jim Ericson, Community Development Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Director Bob Long, City Attorney ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES• October 13,1997 -City Council Meeting: MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve the minutes of the October 13, 1997 City Council meeting as presented. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES• • Page 2 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council There were no Advisory Commission Minutes for consideration. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Mayor McCarty read the Proclamation for Literacy Day which is scheduled for November 1,1997. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor McCarty asked that Item 8 (C) be removed from the Consent Agenda. MOTIONISECOND: KoopmeinerslQuick to approve the Consent Agenda AS AMENDED. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried C. Adopt Resolution No. 5174, A Resolution of Appreciation for Fire Motor Operator Lawrence M. Myalicki, Retiring November 30,1997. MOTIONISECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No. 5174, A Resolution of Appreciation for Fire Motor Operator Lawrence M. Myslicki, Retiring November 30, 1997. . Mayor McCarty read Resolution No. 5174, recognizing and commending Lawrence Myslicki for his devoted service as a fire fighter and fire motor operator for the City of Mounds View and, on behalf of the City Council and City, presented him with a plaque in honor of his service. Mayor McCarty asked that Item 11(A) be moved forward for consideration at this time. A. Consideration of Resolution No. 3175, Approving the City of Mounds View's Application for Participation in a Cooperative Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Ms. Bennett, Economic Development Director, explained that SEH is requesting and supporting participation in a cooperative agreement with MnDOT for the proposed signal at Edgewood Drive and Highway 10. The resolution is required to allow the funding for the signal to be considered by MnDot in their upcoming budget cycle. The budget cycle is for 1999, but if approved would be available to Mounds View in 1998. She explained that as a part of the application which is due by November 1,1997, the City is also required to submit an estimated cost-sharing allocation, traffic study summary and preliminary layout of intersection and roadway alignment. She noted that this is a critical step to assure that funding would be available if the city chooses to implement the signal and re-alignment along with the ring road concept. She explained that the city is not committed until a Cooperative Agreement is signed. MnDot will be reviewing the application in early 1998 and make their recommendation. The city would not be requested to review the agreement until sometime in the Spring of 1998. ff the city chooses not to pursue the sisal and road alignment, a letter can be written to MnDot asking that they be removed from the list. If funded, MnDot could potentially fund 50% of the signal and 100% of the turn lane and median construction. Ms. Bennett noted that staff is recommending approval of Resolution NO. 5175. • Page 3 . October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to approve Resolution No. 5175, Approving the City of Mounds View's Application for Participation in a Cooperative Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Council member Stigney asked for a clarification on the city's right of way costs. Mr. Glen VanWormer of SEH explained that there should not be any cost as it would go through the city hall parking lot, but MnDot needs to see that the city is responsible forright-of--way costs. Mr. Stigney asked if estimated costs were available for Edgewood Drive and the frontage road construction. Mr. VanWormer explained that this information should be available shortly. Council member Stigney stated he has concerns with where the realignment will fall. Ms. Bennett explained that as it is proposed, it would nick the edge of the city hall parking lot. The plan is to add that parking to the south side of the property. Mr. VanWonner explained that the information provided is a very conceptual sketch. The added parking spaces would be moved into the green area towards Highway 10. Council member Stigney noted that this realignment is tied in with the Ring Road Concept and he has some reservations with that concept. He would prefer to see the city get the plans in place before applying for funding. Because no input has been received from the residents in regard to the possible exchange of laud, he cannot support the application at this time. • VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried RESIDENTS Oi~STS AND COMMENT5 FROM THE FLOOR• Mayor McCarty explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with concerns on items that are not on the Agenda. There were no questions or comments from the floor. PIIBLIC HEARINGS. Public Hearing to Consider the Transfer of the Off-Sak Liquor License for Murzyn Liquors, 2840 Highway 10 to Khahn Van Duong. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:17 p.m. He asked if there were any residents who wished to address this. There were no comments and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. Attorney Long noted that approval should be conditioned upon evidence of transfer of proper title. MOTIONJSECOND: KoopmeinersfQuick to approve the transfer of the off-sale liquor license for Murzyn Liquors, 2840 Highway 10 to Khahn Van Duong, conditioned upon evidence of transfer of title. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Consider Ordinance No. 603, An Ordinance Vacating part of a Drainage Easement over Lots 1? and 18, Edgewood Square for Good Value Homes (lots fronting Pinewood Circle). i Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. • Page 4 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council Mr. Ericson, Planning Associate, explained that John Peterson, who represents Good Value Homes, Inc., is requesting that the city approve a wetland alteration permit and a vacation of a portion of a drainage easement that covers Lot 17 and 18 of Block 1, Edgewood Square. This easement was dedicated to the city as a result of the initial platting in 1982. He noted that in order to build on the two lots, a wetland alteration permit would be needed because work will be done within the City's wetland zoning district. Mr. Ericson noted that there are standards which need to be met for a wetland alteration permit to be granted which were listed in the staff report. All of these standards have been met. He noted that this project was reviewed by the City's engineer who found them consistent with the City's Local Water Management Plan. Peggy Little, 5539 St. Michael Street, stated she was under the understanding that there would be no more encroachments on the wetland. There are only a few wetlands left and the city needs run-off places. She stated the city agreed before that no more lots would be built on the wetland. Lisa Gilpin, 2358 Pinewood Circle, stated as a parent she would like to appeal to the environmental effects of this request. She stated as a family they have spent a lot of tune down there and have seen many fox and beautiful birds in there. She does not understand how the wetlands will not be affected by putting houses on those lots. Annette Katzmerek, 7730 Edgewood Drive, stated she has concerns about the drainage at 7740 Edgewood Drive. That property and the one directly behind it gets half flooded out after a rainfall. If the wetlands are filled in, where will the water go? Gary Collis, 2390 Pinewood Circle, stated the city does not even have the acreage of the wetland. The DNR has informed him that if the wetland is over two acres, it is protected and must be replaced. He inquired as to how much of the land on Lot 18 will be built on. He noted that 2/3 of Lot 18 is in the wetland. Mr. Ericson explained that no work will occur within the wetland. He provided a diagram, showing the wetland and Lots 17 and 18. He noted that the proposal is to dig out an additional hole for additional flood storage capacity. The map which was sent out to residents does not accurately depict where the wetland actually is, according to the Rice Creek Watershed District. The home, as proposed would be 35 feet from the wetland. B~suse the wetland is not being encroached upon, the DNR requirements do not apply. Mr. Collis commented that there is a lot of wildlife back in the wetlands and that by digging more holes, it will ruin the land for the animals. Joseph Milton Gilpin, 2358 Pinewood Circle, stated he has a lot of reservations about this project. The property right next to the proposed lot has an abandoned home on it now (Lot 16). This home has been vacant for a year and a half. He thinks perhaps one reason the home is vacant is that it has no back yard, only a swamp, and homeowners cannot sell the property. He feels the same situation could occur if homes are built on the other lots. He stated he is against the project and feels the city should keep the valuable open space. Peggy Haselius, 2381 County Road I, stated she is the original owner of the undeveloped land on Edgewood Square. When she sold it, she was told by staff at City Hall that they would take anything over five acres for recreational development. ffMounds View owns the lots, how can Good Value Homes build there and make a big profit`t Mayor McCarty explained that the city did not take title of the property, they merely took an easement for surface water management. Ms. Haselius stated she has the certificate of title for those three lots and she will not give them up. She wants the property left as it is. • Page 5 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council Mr. Ericson stated it was his understanding that Good Value Homes was the owner of the property and that they have been paying the taxes on the property, however this has not been verified with the County. Mr. Little, 5539 St. Michael Street, stated he understood that after the original homes were built in that area, there would be some land left over. At the time, they submitted a petition around to have members of the community vote as to whether or not they would be in favor of the development of the land. That request was fumed down. He feels the city should do what's right for future generations and that the property should be left as it is. Jim Crryzmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated at one time he inquired about purchasing the two lots there, but the Rice Creek Watershed District sent them a letter stating that Lot 17 was subject to drainage easements and that no construction could be placed on it. Tim Meehan, 2382 Pinewood Circle, stated he is against the property as he feels it would be destroying the wetlands and that a hole in the ground is not the same as preserving the wetland - it is just a holding pond. The home on Lot 16 has absolutely no background, no grasses, no trees - just a deep hole in the backyard. That is exactly what would happen on these lots. He compared this situation to the Lake Calhoun problem, where continual building has affected the water quality. Now they are trying to convert a lot of the area back into wetlands now. • Kathy CTrytmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated they looked into purchasing the two lots approximately two years ago and at that time there were back-taxes of over $1,600 on the property. She would propose that rather than building more homes there, residents should be given the option of purchasing it to leave it as it is. Bill Doty, 3049 Bronson Drive, stated over the years the designations for wetlands have been ignored. Wetlands were meant to be preserved and not just substituted with a hole in the ground. He understood that Lot 16 was never supposed to be built on. Now a home on that lot stands vacant with a hole in the backyard. He feels the Council should consider the original intent of wetland preservation and leave the lots as they are. When development occurs in wetlands, it is merely substituted with holding ponds and the city needs to preserve what is left. Council member Quick explained that all laws, regulations, covenants and agencies have been satisfied before development has taken place in the City. Leah Hager, 2387 County Road I, stated she is not in favor of the proposal. Scott Dumouceoux, 2359 Pinewood Circle, stated he also is not in favor of the proposal. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. COUNCII, BUSINE5S• B. Consideration of Resolution No. 5173, a Resolution Approving the Wetland Alteration Permit on Lots 17 and 18 of Edgewood Square for Good Value Homes. John Peterson, President of Good Value Homes, stated they are the owners of the property and have been far many years. They purchased the property from the original developer of the property. He explained that they do not propose to do anything to the wetlands. The land in Lots 17 and 18 is not wetland. They have walked Page 6 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council the site several times with the Watershed Field personnel and gone through the entire Watershed process. They have paid over $10,000 in taxes on the property over many years and the property was platted out into three separate lots with the proposed scenario in mind - it was left to be owned privately. There will be more ponding capacity after the development and they are providing more storage than what is presently provided. Mayor McCarty asked what has changed since the original development so that the City no longer needs the drainage easements. Mr. Peterson stated he believes the land was considered to be wetland in 1982 and that is not so. He wondered why the city would need an easement over upland that is not subject to flooding. He also wondered why the property was platted into three separate lots if it was not for the possibility that in the future the easement may not be needed by the city. If the purpose of the easement was storage, they will provide additional storage. Council member Koopmeiners asked if staff has any idea what the total acreage of the wetland is. Mr. Ericson stated only when the wetland becomes delineated is that information available. Mr. Peterson reiterated that this is totally irrelevant in this case as there is no encroachment into the wetland. Council member Quick asked if the Rice Creek Watershed has signed off on this proposal. Mr. Ericson responded that they had. After discussion, Mayor McCarty stated he believes there must have been some purpose for the drainage easement in the agreement between the City and Good Value Homes, and feels the city needs more tune to check records to determine the validity and purpose of the easement and whether it is tied to storm water and wetland issues. MOTIONISECOND: QuickJKoopmeiners to table this item in order to obtain additional information. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARINGS• Consideration of Resolution No. 5168, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Mounds View Business Park East S~ond Addition for Everest Group. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Ericson explained that this plat was originally approved by the City Council on October 24, 1994. Because the plat was not filed with Ramsey County within the time frame allowed, it needs to be reviewed and re-approved by the City Council. The plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 15,1997 and they recommended approval. The Building N site is approximately 6.89 acres and the proposed building is approximately 100,000 square feet. Mr. Ericson noted that according to the city code, full platting is required for all subdivisions and re-subdivisions. The two issues which need to be considered for any subdivision of land are easements and park dedication requirements. The easement document will be prepared before the plat is finalized. The staffhas calculated that the appropriate park dedication fee for this re-subdivision is $56, 771 and this has been approved by the applicant. Ma or McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. Y Page 7 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to Approve Resolution No. 5168, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Mounds View Business Park East Second Addition for Everest Group, Ltd. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried COUNCIL BUSINE5S• C. Consideration of Resolution No. 5172, A Resolution Authorizing the Abatement of Nuisances at 2349 Laport Drive. MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Quick to postpone action on Resolution No. 5172, until November 24, 1997 and instruct staff to work with the property owner to develop a voluntary abatement plan. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Council member Quick noted that this item has been before the Council several times and he is concerned that the Council come to some conclusion soon. Council member Koopmeiners also stated his concern as to the upcoming Winter season and the need to get the property cleaned up yet this Fall. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 605, An Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Utility Companies for the Operation of the Utility within the City of Mounds View. Mr. Whiting explained that the Franchise Fee for the 1998 Budget needs to be reinstated. The Council discussed the city's preliminary budget and it was decided that the franchise fee needed to be reinstated, but rather than at a 3% rate, it would be at a 2-1/2% rate. This would be aone-year ordinance with the franchise fee sunsetting on 12/31/98 (this is actually a one year extension of the franchise fee). Mr. Long explained that the original ordinance (#519) passed on November 20, 1992 made the 3% franchise fee sunset on 12/31/97. The franchise fee change is allowed as per the last clause of the ordinance. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the First Reading of Ordinance No. 605, An Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Utility Companies for the Operation of the Utility within the City of Mounds View, and to waive the reading. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty aye Council member Quick aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Council member Stigney aye Motion Carried (4-0) E. Consideration of Approving the Cooperative Agreement and Initial Agreement by and betwcen the City of Mounds View and Minneapolis Public Housing Authority for Silver Lake Commons. Mr. Long provided the Council with a quick update on this issue. As discussed, staff was to bring back to the Council a Cooperative Agreement and Initial Agreement in order to move forward on the Silver Lake • Page 8 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council Commons project. He has been in discussions with the developer and as of Friday, there was not an agreement on some very important provisions which the Council has been concerned about; this being that the city not have any exposure or liability. He proposed to MPHA that they insert a standard "Hold Harmless Clause". This language was not agreed to by MPHA. The developer offered to enter into a separate development agreement, and a "Hold Harmless" with the city, and cover any additional insurance requirements. However, this would not provide the same kind of security for the city and although the risk may be small, he did not feel it would be in the best interest of the city. Mayor McCarty stated he would not support any agreement that would not protect the City. Milo Pinkerton, of MSP Real Estate asked if the city would be willing to give them more time to try to figure out something. He would like to sit down and come up with an acceptable alternative. Mayor McCarty explained that it is the sole interest of the City Council to protect the best interests of the citizens of Mounds View. There are some significant commitments on the part of the city through the joint powers agreements and they need assurance that the entity that they deal with can hold the city harmless in the case of litigation that is not caused by the city. F. Consideration of Adopting Ordinance No. 604, Amending Title 1200, Chapter 1204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Park Dedication Fees. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the Adoption of Ordinance No. 604, Amending Title 1200, Chapter 1204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Park Dedication Fees, and to waive the reading. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Council member Stigney aye Council member Quick aye Motion Carved (4-0) G. Approval to Authorize Mayor and Clerk Administrator to Sign Joint Powers Agreement for Northwest Youth and Family Services. Mr. Whiting asked that this item be set aside as the City has not received the final draft of the agreement. I~ First Reading of Ordinance No. 606, An Ordinance Amending Cable Franchise Ordinance No. 319, Article II, Section 4, Franchise Term. Mr. Whiting explained that this Ordinance will amend the existing Cable Franchise Ordinance, extending the term of the Franchise Agreement from November 8, 1997 to January 19, 1998. This is being requested on behalf of the Council for the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission. They are in the process of negotiating a new agreement. • Page 9 October 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve the First Reading of Ordinance No. 606, An Ordinance Amending Cable Franchise Ordinance No. 319, Article II, Section 4, Franchise Term, and to waive the reading. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCariy aye Council member Stigney aye Council member Quick aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Motion Carried (4-0) ~,enort of Council members: Koopmeinera: No report. • Stigney: Council member Stigney noted that the city-owned lot on Arden is in need of mowing. Quick: No report. ~a,Xor McCarty: Mayor McCarty briefly discussed the legislation which would allow the federal courts to make zoning decisions that impact the communities. He encouraged residents to get ahold of the legislators to let them know that they are not in support of this. Report of Clerk Administrator: Mr. Whiting briefly updated the Council on meetings he had with the Mounds View School District and MAC Officials. Report of Attorney: No report. MOTION/SECOND: KoopmeinerslStigney to adjourn the Council meeting at 8:59 p.m. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Respectfully submitted, Tamara D. Saeflce Recording Secretary ~J MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING • 2~7 Please sign NAME ADDRESS ~IVD~~"J~r~I~.~L~C~ ~3~~ ~r~e~6ac( ~~~~, S ~ l ~ t~ ~ / ~ ^~ ~_ 1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~' S II 1~ t~S ~ ~ ~ l~r.~ l/ ~~ ~ ~c~ l r _ ~ lG -`/,~~~' t....~~~ C t/c'C'~-~ _ f, r ~ c ~ _ u ~ ~ ~ ~ r / + ~~` ,~~' ~~ 4~%'i. ?' ~ ~ ~j ~~ ~~ ?~ °~ 1~~~ c ~ ~ z.- S lE'h fcC~l'1 L~fJ©r ~P~r~" ~c~7~ -~ ;~ ,~1~ ~i~s /~~- ~,