Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1998/04/27Page 1 April 27, 1998 Mounds View City Council APPROVED PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m. on Apri127, 1998. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT : Mayor McCarty, Council members Koopmeiners, Quick and Stigney MEMBERS ABSENT: Council member Gunn ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting, Clerk Administrator Jim Ericson, Planning Associate Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Cari Schmidt, Assistant to the City Administrator Michael Ulrich, Public Works Director Bruce Kessel, Finance Director, John Hammerschmidt, Bob Long, City Attorney 3. APPROVAL OFMINIITES: A. Regular Meeting of April 13, 1998: Council member Koopmeiners noted two corrections. Page 2, line 38 and Page 3, Line 28 should be changed from "Mayor McCarty" to "Acting Mayor Koopmeiners". MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Koopmeiners to approve the Minutes of the April 13, 1998 City Council Meeting AS AMENDED. Page 2 April 27, 1998 Mounds View City Council VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays 4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Motion Carried None. S. CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Council member Stigney asked that Item 5(D) be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to amend their previous motion, and to approve Items A, B and C of the Consent Agenda, with Item D being removed for discussion. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Discussion on Item 5(Dl: Council member Stigney noted that Item D will change salary ranges and benefit status for golf course personnel He noted that the Council recently signed a contract with the Golf Course Superintendent to provide incentive pay for personnel for retention purposes, and therefore is surprised to see this item before the Council for approval. He will not support these resolutions. MOTION by Stigney to deny approval of Resolutions 5231-5233. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve Resolutions 5231-5233. Mayor McCarty noted that these salary changes will not increase the 1998 budget. Council member Stigney noted that this will make golf course personnel eligible for benefits and this is why he opposes it. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried 6. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS 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 public. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Introduction of Ordinance No. 607, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code regarding "Signs and Billboards". Page 3 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. Mr. Jim Ericson, Planning Associate, explained that this Ordinance will amend the sign code so that installation of wall signs, such as those individual tenant signs displayed on the Moundsview Square or Silver View Plaza buildings would require a building permit and be required to pay a building permit fee whereas up to this point they were exempted. The impact to the city is somewhat substantial. Over the past five years, it is estimated that an average of 15 permits would be before the city for a wall sign. Typically the permit fee for this would be approximately $70.00. Over the course of five years, this would have amounted to approximately $4,500 in lost fees. The impact to the tenant is not significant and this permit requirement is typical for most cities. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 607, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code pertaining to "Signs and Billboards", and to waive the reading. With no input from the public, Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m. Mayor McCarty stated he would not be supporting this Ordinance. 'The charges for putting the signs on the interior walls of the businesses is just one more expense to the businesses and he does not see it as a great help to the city's revenue structure. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty nay Council member Koopmeiners: aye Council member Stigney aye Council member Quick aye Motion Carries - (3 - 1 ) B. Consideration of Resolution No. 5228, a Resolution Approving a Development Review and Wetland Buffer Permit for the Bridges Technology Park Phase II Expansion, 8400 Coral Sea Street, Requested by Bridges Leasing Company, LLC. Mr. Ericson explained that the first phase of this building currently exists on Coral Sea Street. The proposal before the Council is to expand the development to the North on Lot 2, adding 35,000 square feet for a total build-out of 64,376 square feet. City Code requires that a Development Review be completed. All of the dimensional requirements of this development have been met. The drainage plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer as well as the Rice Creek Watershed District and a watershed district permit has been issued. The existing retention pond just West of the existing building will capture any run-off from the new development and therefore the run-off will not affect the wetland. The only issue that currently does not comply with City Code is the parking. The applicant is proposing to construct 171 spaces; the city code requires 200 spaces. The developer has the availability to build 214 spaces, however Page 4 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council they would fall into environmentally sensitive area. The city has allowed for proof of parking in the past. With adjustments to the parking ratio, 169 spaces would be necessary. They are proposing 171 spaces. One of the stipulations of the variance would be that if the use changes or the need exists, the developer would be required to build those proof of parking spaces. Mr. Ericson noted that Item C of the Agenda is an Ordinance which would vacate a portion of a drainage and utility easement over and across Lots 2 and 3 of this development. This is necessary as the proposed building expansion and development will cross over the easements. Additionally, because this development is within 100 feet of a wetland, a wetland buffer permit will need to be issued by the city. One was issued for the development to the South three years ago. The impervious surface that would be within the wetland is approximately 75% of the area. Resolution No. 5228 will approve the development review and the wetland buffer permit for this development. Council member Stigney noted that the proposed setback is 10 feet from the parking area to the wetland and asked what the setback is on the original building. Mr. Ericson noted that it is approximately 18 feet. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to Approve Resolution NO. 5228, Approving a Development Review and Wetland Buffer Permit for the Expansion of the Bridges Technology Park, 8400 Coral Sea Street. MOTION by Stigney to amend the previous motion and to require an 18 foot setback from the wetland rather than a 10 foot setback as proposed. Council member Quick asked if this plan was approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Ericson responded in the affirmative. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: 3 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried C. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing and Introduction of Ordinance No. 615, an Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement over and across Lots 2 and 3, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. Mr. Ericson noted that the City Attorney has reviewed this and drafted the Ordinance which will accomplish the necessary vacation of the easement. With no comments from the public, Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:23 p.m. Page 5 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. 615, an Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement over and across Lots 2 and 3, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, and to waive the reading. VOTE: Council member Stigney aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Council member Quick aye Mayor McCarty aye Motion Carries (4-0). Mayor McCarty noted that the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 615 will be held on May 11, 1998. D. 7:20 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No. 5219, a Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Properties Located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road, Changing the Land Use Designations from Low and High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial, Requested by TOLD Development Company. AND E. 7:20 p.m. Public Hearing and Introduction of Ordinance No. 614 an Ordinance to Re-zone Properties Located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood road from R-3, Medium Density Residential and R-1, Single Family Residential, to B-2, Limited Business Districted, Requested by TOLD Development Company. Mr. Ericson asked that Items D and E be considered together as they relate to the same project. He explained that the Planning Commission voted to approve the Resolution to amend the Comprehensive Plan and also to approve the rezoning of the property. The applicant has requested continuance of these items for two weeks until the next regular Council meeting. Attorney Long explained that under the State Statutes, approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment requires a 2/3 vote of the council (in this case, four members of the council to approve). Under state statutes regarding zoning amendments, approval requires a 4/5 vote (all four council members present). MOTION by Mayor McCarty to deny the request for a continuance. Notices have gone out to the public and many residents have taken the time to come to the council meeting (noting the full council chambers). MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to grant the request for a continuance of Items 5 (D) and (E). Attorney Long noted if the continuance is granted and the Public Hearing is continued, a date must be specified in the motion so that the public is made aware. This will also alleviate the necessity to re- publicize the public hearing notice. Page 6 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to AMEND the previous motion to include a continuation date of May 11, 1998. Council member Stigney noted that one of the Council members is absent and he feels this is a pivotal issue. He would like to have all council members available to vote on Items 5 (D) and (E). Council member Koopmeiners felt it may be wise to continue the public hearing AFTER the Comprehensive Plan update for Mounds View has been adopted. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/McCarty to AMEND the previous motion to include an indefmite date subsequent to the completion and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of Mounds View. Council member Stigney asked when the Comprehensive Plan Update is expected to be completed. Mayor McCarty noted that it must be completed by December 31, 1998. Attorney Long noted that if there is not a date certain, the City wilt be required to re-notice the Public Hearing. Mr. Rick Jopke, Community Development Director, asked about the 60 day approvaUdenial requirement. Mr. Ericson stated a 60-day extension has already been granted, and May 29, 1998 will be the deadline for a council decision. If the Council does not make a decision by that date, it will automatically be approved. An additiona160 day extension could be granted, but would require the approval of the developer. Mayor McCarty noted that even with an additiona160-day extension, the Comprehensive Plan Update may not be completed. He is concerned about maintaining the confidence and trust of the residents. He feels the Council needs to act decisively and take action tonight. He does not see this proposal as the pivotal point in all that the council is attempting to do. He feels the council members and staff need to honor their commitments to a full, complete public involvement in the Comprehensive Planning process. He is appealing to the Council to deny both of the motions and open the Public Hearing to allow residents to give their input. VOTE on Amending original motion to approve continuation of Public Hearing after a Comprehensive Plan Update has been approved by the City of Mounds View. 3 ayes 1 nay (McCarty) Motion Carried Council member Koopmeiners stated he misunderstood the motion, and he would like to motion to reconsider the previous vote. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/McCarty to reconsider the previous motion. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/McCarty to withdraw their original motion to continue the Public Hearing after a Comprehensive Plan Update has been approved by the City of Mounds View. Page 7 April 27, 1998 Mounds View City Council VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: Quick/Stigney to continue the Public Hearing on May 11, 1998. VOTE: 2 ayes 2 nays (Koopmeiners/ McCarty) Motion Fails Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m. Carol Arel, 7750 Greenwood Drive, presented a petition containing almost 200 signatures in opposition to the project and to the re-zoning of residential property for commercial use. She noted that there will be many residents affected by the rezoning of the property by an increase in traffic, safety concerns and property value issues. She noted that the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council based on what they "think" the new comprehensive plan will include in part. She personally spoke with Dick Thompson at Metropolitan Council and he indicated that the Planning Commission is not allowed to consider in this decision what the new comprehensive plan might be. The amendment request therefore needs to be considered based on the current comprehensive plan. She has read the city's current comprehensive plan and it states that residential development is and will continue to be the primary type of land use development within the community and that low density, single family neighborhoods are to be preserved. She does not feel that a development of this type is a preservation of residential areas. Ms. Arel noted goals contained in the comprehensive plan which she feels are in direct opposition to this type of development. In regard to traffic, the only traffic study that they have seen to date, indicates a 40% increase in traffic daily on Greenwood Drive to over 750 cars. Critical portions of this project have fallen apart and she wonders why it has continued. Other concerns expressed by Ms. Arel included the possibility of a 24-hour pharmacy at Wallgreens, the fact that the project size is less than five acres (city code 1120.03) which is in direct violation of code, the proposal does not fit into the current code requirements, and that many residents did not receive copies of the notice of Public Hearing. She also stated a concern about developers trying to pressure residents into supporting the project. She asked that the Council consider what is best for the residents of Mounds View. Kathy Piche', 2204 Lois Drive, stated that for some residents their dream homes are being changed by this development. She personally will not be directly affected however she has concerns as it very well could be her neighborhood. She asked that the Council consider leaving the residential neighborhoods as they are and to continue to provide the sense of privacy and security that each citizen deserves. Janet Wilcox, 7815 Eastwood Road, noted that the developer of the townhome project in the area has shown some interest in this particular parcel of land. She is concerned that he may come in with a proposal for the corner if this development is not approved. Residents feel they basically have a choice between a drugstore at the end of the street or more townhomes. She feels this may be why the Council has not heard from very many residents on Eastwood. The proposal does not paint Mounds View as afamily-friendly place. Jodi Johnson, 7870 Greenwood Drive, stated she is appalled at how the council and staff have been working with this development plan. Residents have indicated their opposition since the beginning and she feels proceeding with the project is a blatant disregard for the residents' feelings. Page 8 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he is concerned about the residents on Greenwood due to the traffic, but he feels residents need to consider the number of businesses that have been lost to other communities. People need to start thinking about the tax base. Where should commercial businesses locate? He feels this area is more appropriate for business than for residential as there are safety concerns with regard to children and Highway 10. JoAnn Colleen, 2617 County Road I, stated her property is immediately East of the proposed Wallgreens site. Highway 10 has been designated as the main corridor where businesses and development need to locate. At some point, residences will be affected by development on Highway 10. Wallgreens will be paying a considerable amount more in taxes than what the was being paid by the four residences on that site. Ms. Colleen stated she is in support of the proposed development. She noted, however that there are different options for routing traffic and it is important for the City to look at those options if the development is to proceed. Lance King, 7751 Greenwood Drive, stated he was out of town and therefore did not have the opportunity to sign the petition in opposition to the development. He noted that he did not receive a notice of the Public Hearing. To the public, it appears that the Council has already made a decision on this issue. He stated he fmds it difficult to believe that Wallgreens would choose to locate in an area where fast food restaurants are struggling, where there are a number of vacant lease spaces available and where a Wallgreens is located within less than 3 miles. Jim Schmidt, 5446 Erickson Road, stated he feels there are other, more appropriate areas in the community for a Wallgreens store and is alarmed that the Council would consider removing four residential homes to make way for a commercial development. Without access to Highway 10, traffic will have a substantial impact on the residents in the neighborhood. Steve Pansen, 7721 Greenwood Drive, stated he is disappointed that this development has moved forward without the public receiving more information. He feels the development will have an impact on the safety of the children in the neighborhood. Gayla Keyer, 7730 Greenwood Drive, stated she has worked actively on this issue for the past six months. Unfortunately, she did not have much support and she eventually she sold out. She stated she is happy to see the residents back together. She feels, however, that the developer has essentially destroyed the neighborhood. Terri Smith, 2653 Scottland Court, wondered when her home would be affected. She feels it is unfair that homes are being taken away. Bob Glazer, 2625 Hillview Road, asked why Mounds View needs this development. Gerald Arel, 7750 Greenwood Drive, stated he opposes the proposed change to the comprehensive plan and the re-zoning of the property. He stated residents were offered money in exchange for silencing their voices. He stated he is not against Wallgreens, but is against what is being done in regard to amendments to the comprehensive plan. Page 9 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council Crystal Wilson, 7764 Greenwood Drive, stated she cannot believe that the community is willing to open another business and jeopardize the Snyders store in the process. She asked that council members consider what this will do to her property. With no further comments from the public, Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:29 p.m. Mayor McCarty stated he feels the city acted appropriately and done the best job possible in getting the Public Hearing notices out to residents. If residents did not receive a public notice on of the hearing at their home and are in the designated affected area, it is possible that the notice went to the owner of record. If residents have purchased their homes on a Contract for Deed or if there is another owner on the title, it is likely that they received the notice. He noted that staff will continue to try to improve on this in the future by making all mail notices duplicate in the case of anon-resident owner. Notices are published in the local newspapers as well. The city does everything in their power to get information out to the public, including televising of all council meetings. Residents must take responsibility as well to read the notices and keep themselves informed. Mayor McCarty noted that the council and staff are bound by state law and the residents' constitutional rights to apply the laws equally and without bias. He provided information in regard to the townhouse project which was recently approved by the council. The developer of that project had indicated his • interest in the city's vacant lot on the corner of Eastwood and Highway 10 as well as a long term loan. In the process, and in consideration of the public's opposition, two council members asked if the council could look at another use for the city's property which would presumably work better as a commercial property. At that time, it was decided to allow another use for that property to be pursued. Subsequent to that, the city received a proposal which involved the residential homes. The City Council and Planning Commission have been proceeding in the direction of what they understood that the community wished to see. Mr. Bob Cunningham, Vice President of Development for TOLD Development, stated it is obvious that there is a preponderance in the community against this project. They came into the community thinking that they would be adding a retail store at the busiest intersection in Mounds View. They paid the homeowners what they believed to be a fair price for the property and worked out arrangements with adjacent property owners to allow them to litigate for the what they believed to be negative impact to their property. They worked with staff and the Planning Commission to comply with their requests, and he stated it has never been their intention to cause contention in the neighborhood. They are willing to abide by the Council's decision. Mayor McCarty explained that the proposal includes a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use from high and low density residential to neighborhood commercial. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the City Code currently provide for a Neighborhood Commercial classification. A drugstore would fall under B-3 classification which is not a neighborhood oriented code classification. He would suggest that the Council consider a substitute resolution of denial rather than the resolution of approval. Copies of the proposed resolution were distributed to the council members and Mayor McCarty took the opportunity to read this resolution. . MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Koopmeiners to approve Resolution No. 5216, denying the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Properties Located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Page 10 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council Road, and a change in land use designations from high and low density residential to Neighborhood Commercial, Requested by TOLD Development Co. Council member Stigney stated feels this proposal is far better than other options for the property. At the time of the townhome proposal, the residents on Eastwood did not want townhomes proposed for the area. He feels is important that the city listen to the residents of Eastwood as well as the residents of Greenwood in determining what goes in on that corner. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Quick) Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Koopmeiners to authorize the development of a second resolution denying the zoning change request. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Quick) Motion Carried F. 7:25 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution NO. 5222, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Over-sized Accessory Building at 2824 Woodale Drive. Mr. Ericson explained that Ronald Overton has applied for a conditional use permit to convert an existing single-car garage to an accessory building, moving it 100 feet back toward the rear of his property and using it as a shed/storage building. In it's place, he is proposing to construct a 2-car garage. The shed/storage building would exceed the city's limits for an accessory building which is 216 square feet when not being used as a garage, and therefore will require a conditional use permit. The requirements of the CUP have been met. He noted that staff has included stipulations in the resolution which he proceeded to go through. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/McCarty to Approve Resolution No. 5222, Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP for anOver-sized Accessory Building at 2824 Woodale Drive. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m. With no comments from the public, Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:51 p.m. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried G. 7:30 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No. 5223, a Resolution Approving an Over-sized Garage at 7858 Long Lake Road, Requested by Thomas Lammi. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Ericson explained that this applicant is proposing to add to his existing garage a 616 square foot garage addition. The addition would attach seamlessly to the rear of the garage and house, tying into the existing roofline, siding and soffits. A Conditional Use Permit is required for any garages exceeding 864 square feet in size. The proposed size of the garage after completion is 1,246 square feet. It was noted that this proposal complies with all CUP requirements. With no comments from the public, Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 9:03 p.m. Page 11 April 27, 1998 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No. 5223, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for anOver-sized Garage at 7858 Long Lake Road. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried H. 7:35 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No. 5224, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Merryville Farm Market to allow for an Outdoor Sales operation at Mounds View Square. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 9:04 p.m. Mr. Ericson explained that this is request is for a CUP for Merryville Farms to allow them to operate an outdoor produce stand in the parking lot of Moundsview Square Shopping Center. This has been operated at this location for the past three years and there have been no problems. The CUP will allow the city to enforce the time, manner and place provisions for the operation of this stand. All requirements for the CUP have been met. Staff is currently looking at the code in terms of possible amendments so that in future years this request would not need to go before council as a CUP. With no comments from the public, Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 9:05 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve Resolution No. 5224, Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Merryville Farm Market to Allow for an Outdoor Sales Operation at Mounds View Square. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried I. Consideration of Resolution No. 5227, a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision of Property Located at 7581 Spring Lake Road, Requested by Charles and Shirley Schultz. Mr. Ericson explained that this applicant is requesting approval to split their property located at 7581 Spring Lake Road into two lots. One lot would be 85 feet, leaving 80 feet for the existing home. The City Attorney has reviewed the necessary documents and all dimensional requirements have been met. In regard to park dedication fees, the Parks and Recreation Commission has requested the fee be set at $1,032. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to Approve Resolution No. 5227, a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision Located at 7581 Spring Lake Road, Requested by Charles and Shirley Schultz. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried J. 7:40 p.m. Public Hearing. 1. Consideration of Resolution No. 5226, a Resolution Approving a Development Stage Review Plan for the Anthony Properties Management/O'Neil PUD at 2430 Highway 10. 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 5229, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit at 2430 Highway 10. Page 12 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council 3. Consideration of Resolution No. 5230, Concerning Access to Anthony Properties Management/O'Neil PUD at 2430 Highway 10. Mr. Rick Jopke, Community Development Director, provided abrief re-cap of this development proposal. The applicant, Anthony Properties is proposing to construct a 63,000 square foot, 15 screen 2,188 seat movie theater, three 11,000 square foot one-story office buildings, a 5,000 square foot restaurant and a 6,400 square foot retaiUrestaurant building on the site located at 2430 Highway 10. Mr. Jopke noted that there are three steps in the PUD process - a general concept plan, a development stage plan and a fmal plan. On May 12, 1997 the City Council approved the General Concept Plan for this development. The Development Stage Plan, which is before the Council now is the next step in the process. This includes a more detailed plan of the development. The Planning Commission reviewed the plan and recommended approval of the Development Stage Plans with a number of stipulations. The City Council must conduct a Public Hearing and grant approval ,resubmit the plan to the Planning Commission for further consideration or deny approval of the plan. There is a 60 day requirement for Council approval which is due to expire on May 17, 1998, and if the council does not approve the project, they must either deny it or grant a 60-day extension. Mr. Jopke explained the review and evaluation criteria for development stage plans and provided a brief summary of staffs fmdings regarding each. Essentially, all criteria has been met, with the exception of the signalized intersection on Highway 10 which has not obtained approval from MnDOT. It was noted that the signalized intersection as proposed with aright-in and right-out is important to the development of the property and working with MnDOT in regard to this issue will be important. Mr. Jopke discussed the changes which have been made since the general concept plan which was approved in 1997. The Planning Commission has reviewed the development stage review and is recommending Council approval with stipulations. Mr. Jopke went through the stipulations of the resolutions. Mr. Wendell Smith of Anthony Properties provided a brief overview of the history of the project. He provided copies of the plans which were approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council in 1997, and discussed how the plans have changed since that time. He noted that the revised plan has better quality than the original plan. He provided renderings of the proposed theater and office buildings. He noted that there are still no access points onto County Road H-2 or Long Lake Road. A diagram was provided depicting the new proposed signalized intersection. He noted that it is very important from a safety and traffic standpoint that this signalized intersection be approved and it was their understanding that MnDOT had approved it. On Apri122nd, however, they were notified that MnDOT will not agree to this signalized intersection without access being provided to Long Lake Road or County Road H-2. Mr. Smith asked that the Council approve the development plan, the buffer permit and strongly endorse the intersection as shown on the plan and work with MnDOT to obtain permission of the signalized intersection before the commencement of construction. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m. Milly Ash, 2664 Lake Court Drive, asked for a clarification on the access to the restaurant site from Long Lake Road. Mr. Smith noted that the plan shows a entrance and exit to the restaurant site from Long Lake Road, however MnDOT has indicated that they will not allow for aright-in/right-out to Highway 10 and Page 13 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council the access as shown is the only one to the restaurant site. Ms. Ash stated her concern that people wanting to avoid delays at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10 may choose to cut through the restaurant site. Mr. Smith stated this is a possibility, however he does not feel people will fmd that it saves them any time to use this route. Julie Olson, 2663 Lake Court Circle, asked if the developer has guaranteed in writing that they will provide a share of the cost for the signalized intersection. Mayor McCarty noted that Resolution 5230 will require the developer to partake in the cost ($187,500). Steve Miller, 2614 Clearview, stated in attending earlier meetings in regard to the development, it was his understanding that the developer would assume the cost of any adjustments which needed to be made to get in and out of that property. Why has the city, since that time, agreed to share in that cost? Mayor McCarty noted that with the re-alignment of Edgewood Drive, the city will gain approximately an additional 2 acres of developable commercial land which is valued at approximately $250,000 plus any future development tax revenues that are gained. Additionally, it would provide better access to the community center as well as other benefits to the community. Mr. Miller asked how long it is anticipated to take to re-coup the $440,000. Mayor McCarty noted that this information will not be known until such time as the land is developed, however history has shown that commercial and industrial tax base has been very kind. Mr. Whiting noted that the $442,500 for the city's portion was a high estimate and may not cost that amount. Julie Olson, 2663 Lake Court Circle asked if Resolution 5230 could be amended to add that there would be no access to County Road H-2 or Long Lake Road. Mayor McCarty stated he believes this is already in the recommendation from the Planning Commission and Resolution 5230 merely supports the Council's position on the signalized intersection. Mr. Jay Anthony of Anthony Properties explained that full access to the development is critical and it is his feeling that they can not proceed with merely aright-in/right-out access to the development. The intersection as proposed will not only benefit the theater, but also the community center and the safety off of residents at the Edgewood/Highway 10 intersection. Jerry Linke, 2319 Knollwood Drive, stated he is generally in approval of the development but does have concerns. In reference to the comment that city would gain approximately two acres with the realignment of the intersection, he noted that this is already city land (park land) and that with the realignment of the parking lot, the city would actually lose approximately four acres of park land. Mayor McCarty stated this would be assuming that the city would use the land to the West of the realigned Edgewood. Furthermore, the area that Mr. Linke refers to as a soccer field is not a regulation soccer field and there are other fields in the community that are not currently being used. Other concerns expressed by Mr. Linke included whether the developer has provided a space for recycling of trash and the necessity of screening the proposed lighting for drivers on Highway 10. He noted that County Road H-2 is a major arterial and that there should be access to it. Julie Olson asked if the Council could consider tabling the resolutions until a decision is made in regard to the proposed signalized intersection. She believes that without a curb cut onto Long Lake Road , MnDOT will not approve the signal and therefore the project likely cannot proceed. Page 14 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council Resident, 2698 Lake Court Drive, stated he believes the biggest concern is the access to Long Lake Road or County Road H-2 and that all residents would appreciate an amendment stating that this will not be negotiated as a part of the any deal with MnDOT. Bob Holmback, 2596 Mounds View Drive, stated he does not even like the curb cut to the restaurant. He stated he feels it is the general consensus of the residents that Long Lake Road should not be cut into. Lynn Thomason, 5301 Edgewood Drive, stated she had spoken with Scott Peterson of MnDOT in regard to this issue and she was led to believe that MnDOT will not allow a signal at the intersection. She presented a petition signed by residents to the south and west of the proposed theater project opposing any plan that would allow access to County Road H-2 and Long Lake Road. Dana Mandoza, 2633 Clearview Avenue, stated concerns as to water run-off and its effect on the wetlands. Barb Haake stated this plan was presented to the Rice Creek Watershed District on Wednesday evening and in general it was approved. Mr. Brian Mundstock, Sunde Engineering, presented information in regard to storm water management plan for the proposed development site. He noted that the City Engineer and the Engineers for the Rice Creek Watershed District have reviewed the plans. Mr. Mandoza asked what assurances the city has that the developer will complete the project as planned and, if not, what can be done to hold him accountable. Attorney Long explained that the developer will execute a Development Agreement with the city that will obligate the developer to perform according to standards set forth . There would be performance bonds in place as well. Mr. Mandoza asked if the city could require the developer to complete certain phases of the project before others. He has concerns that the developer may change the plans after experiencing problems in leasing some of the office space. Mr. Anthony noted that he has already executed a long term lease on the property and has spent a considerable amount of money on the project to this point. He has invested more than two years in this project and expects that many millions of dollars will be invested prior to its completion. Mr. Mandoza stated many people have indicated their opposition to the project and it is frustrating to see that their feelings are not considered by the council on this matter. Mayor McCarty noted that those who attend the meetings are usually those in opposition. Rarely do residents come offering support. Furthermore he has a mandate from many of the residents to lower their property taxes and one way of doing that is to enhance the city's commercial and industrial business base. Steve Miller, 2614 Clearview, asked why a project such as this is even being considered for the area. There is already a theater complex in Coon Rapids and with the congestion problems on Highway 10, he wonders if this is really the best project for the area. He is not opposed to development on that site, but does not feel a theater is needed. Page 15 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council Mr. Whiting stated that he has not been approached by any other developers for the development of that property. Mr. Smith indicated that there has been interest in the site by other developers for high density housing and shopping centers, however this did not seem to be a good use for this type of land. A discussion followed in regard to the continuation of the Public Hearing to the May 11, 1998 City Council meeting. It was felt that this would allow staff to meet with MnDOT regarding the signalized intersection. Ms. Olson wondered if the Council has the authority to alter the plans should MnDOT formally deny a signalized intersection and the developer wish to pursue alternatives. Mayor McCarty stated that this could be done at the Public Hearing. David Jahnke complimented the developer on his involvement with the neighborhood during the planning process. He noted that many of the people present at the Public Hearing did not attend informational meetings that were set up between the developer and the residents. Barb Hawke noted that any changes to the plan would need to be re-visited by the Rice Creek Watershed District. • Sara Weeks, 2653 Scottland Court, noted that a curb cut onto Long Lake Road or County Road H-2 would provide a better flow of traffic. With no further comments, Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 11:10 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No. 5226, a Resolution Approving a Development Stage Review Plan for the Anthony Properties Management/O'Neil PUD at 2430 Highway 10, Approve Resolution No. 5229, A Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit at 2430 Highway 10 and to Approve Resolution No. 5230 Concerning Access to Anthony Properties Management/O'Neil PUD at 2430 Highway 10. Council member Stigney stated he felt the Council should consider the concerns raised by the residents. Residents have stated their opposition to paying the $442,000 share to realign the road and install a signal. It was his understanding that the developer would solve the traffic problem. He does not feel it is a good project as it is proceeding. The criteria is not met and he will not support spending that kind of money. Mayor McCarty noted that the $442,000 is a "worst case scenario" and the Council has not committed to a ring-road. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried Mr. Whiting noted that a meeting has been set up with MnDOT for Thursday, Apri130th. Results of this meeting will be reported at the Council Work Session scheduled for Monday, May 4, 1998. K. Consideration of Entering into a Contract with Coca Cola for the Purchase of Soft Drinks for the City and The Bridges Golf Course. Page 16 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to authorize the City to enter into a contract with Coca Cola for the purchase of soft drinks for the city and T'he Bridges Golf Course. Council member Stigney asked what the difference would be if the city owned their own vending machines versus stocking machines owned by others. Mr. Kesel stated he did not have this information available, however if the city stocks the machines the price the city pays for the soft drinks is reduced. Council member Stigney stated he could not approve this contract without obtaining additional information. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried L. Consideration of Supplemental Services Agreement for Phase II Construction of the Community Center. Mr. Ulrich, Public Works Director, explained that Phase Ii construction meetings are taking place at the construction shack for phase II of the community center. It is imperative that the city have the services of • the architect and engineers and their consultants who have drawn up the plans in attendance at these meetings. The original contract with WAI Continuum, allows for 12 meetings and this was adequate for Phase I of the project, however Phase II take considerably longer and staff is requesting that an additional 25 to 30 meetings be authorized in the Supplemental Services Agreement at a cost of $7,800.00. Council member Stigney asked why these costs were not included as part of the original contract. Mr. Ulrich noted that the standard contract calls for 12 meetings. This is not adequate for a project which is expected to run 40 weeks. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to authorize staff to execute a Supplemental Services Agreement for additional attendance at construction meetings for Phase Ii of the Community Center. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried M. Consideration of Community Center Construction Oversight Agreement. Mayor McCarty noted that this was an offer received from Mr. Linke for construction oversight services at the Community Center. Attorney Long explained that the contract with the Construction Management company includes a 3% fee tied to the $3.5 million project and the council has the authority to increase or decrease the construction costs. Mr. Linke explained that any change orders or increases in the construction costs increase the amount that the construction manager receives. Mayor McCarty stated the city has a Construction Manager and he is confident with those services. Page 17 April 27, 1998 Mounds View City Council N. Consideration of Festival in the Park Beer Garden. Ms. Carl Schmidt, Assistant to the City Administrator stated the Mounds View Festival Committee has requested a beer garden as part of the festival. If this is to take place, changes to the Municipal Code will be required. The city has basically two options for consideration: 1) The city could consider allowing 3.2 beer in the City Hall Park which would be open to anyone; or 2) the city could limit beer in the City Hall Park to the Festival only. The Parks & Recreation Commission has recommended that alcohol be limited only to the Festival in the Park. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to begin the process to amend the ordinance in accordance with Draft Option #2. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried O. Consideration of Consulting Services with WOLD Architects and Engineers for City Hall HVAC and Related Building Renovations Project. MOTION by Stigney to table this item. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. • MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to approve the Contract for Consulting Services with WOLD Architects and Engineers for City Hall HVAC and Related Building Renovations Project. Council member Stigney noted that the total project cost is now estimated at $315,000. He feels the city should look at other options. Mr. Ulrich noted that this will go through a competitive bidding process. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried P. Extension of Cable TV Franchise Agreement Ordinance. Mr. Whiting explained that the current extension of the cable television franchise ordinance is due to expire on April 20, 1998. At the May 4th Work Session, he has requested Coralie Wilson and Thomas Creighton to be present to explain the fmalities of the negotiated agreement for a new franchise. In the meantime, the existing agreement needs to be amended. Ordinance 616 will amend Ordinance No. 611 and extend the franchise term to July 20, 1998. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. 616, to waive the reading and to set a Public Hearing and Second Reading of this Ordinance for Monday, May 11, 1998. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to reconsider the Introduction of Ordinance No. 616 (no Roll Call Vote). ROLL CALL VOTE: Page 18 ~. Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council • • Council member Stigney Council member Quick Council member Koopmeiners Mayor McCarty Motion Carried (4-0) aye aye aye aye MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to reconsider Item (N.) Consideration of Festival in the Park Beer Garden: MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. , to waive the reading and to set a Public Hearing and the Second Reading on Monday, May 11, 1998. ROLL CALL VOTE: Council member Quick Council member Koopmeiners Council member Stigney Mayor McCarty aye aye aye aye Motion Carried (4-0) 8. REPORTS: Council member Quick: no report. Council member Stigney: no report. Council member Koopmeiners: no report. Mayor McCarty: no report. City Administrator: Mr. Whiting suggested that Item 10(A) be considered under Council Business, rather than under the Closed Session. City Attorney: No report. 9. NEXT COUNCIL WORK SESSION.• Mav 4. 1998 - 6:00 p.m. NEXT COUNCIL MEETING: Mav 11. 1998 - 7:00 p.tn. 10 A. Consideration of Golf Course Equipment Purchase. MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Quick to authorize the purchase of an aerator for the Bridges Golf Course in the amount of $32,000. (including shipping). VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Page 19 Apri127, 1998 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Stigney to delay the Closed Session portion of the City Council meeting until after the EDA Meeting. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Il. ADJOURNMENT.• MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to adjourn the meeting at 11:53 p.m. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Respectfully submitted, Tamara D. Saefke Recording Secretary • 5 MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~9 Please sign NAME ADDRESS r i (~-re ~ ~ ~~~ ~, ~ 6~~~w t ~~ '"~ ~ T ~~/cam ~~c~ - ~v~ /.~'1 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~- ~,, ~ ~ ~^ ~ ~~ e ~~,~ ~~1~ ~~~. ~ .s_. ~ 1,~ v r ~~ `, GG~ `~~ ~' ~~~ rv~2 ~~ ~ ~ rn~ n ~.I ~~ ~~ r~ MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNC ~~/ ~ IL MEETING ~~z7 q~ Please sign NAME .! ~ ~~~ -~ oaf i ~, ,cS~ vn ) ADDRESS ~~ ~-- ~- ~ 03 ~e„ _ ur' - ~ ~~ RCN `-' G7 I' / 1 ~7/~i1i .~ . / ... ~~~ ~~~ ~_ ~~ ~l~~r ~ `~l~ ~~ ~3 C f ~~~~, ~~~ I~~~ ~ a~~~( CAE ~ ~~ J Fv~~ei 3` i rC ~~e • ~-- „ ~_ MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING z7 ~~ Please sign NAME ADDRESS ~c~.~ l ~ ~, 2- ~, S- 4 Z ~, ~bs~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~ 1 li~ 3