Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1999/01/25 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1999 - 7:00 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Couglin calls meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Coughlin, Council Members, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. REPORTS Gary Quick discussed cable commission meeting programming for next year and they are looking come in and work with them, and requested Mr. run a camera. Rob Marty attended League of Minnesota Cities leaders on Friday and Saturday all day. There information and Mr. martyr would like to bring Council. One of the suggestions talked about session was for a retreat. and their for new people to Quick learn how to newly elected was good that back to the during the work Mayor Coughlin mentioned that he and Mr. Whiting went to an I-35W corridor meeting, a GIS (geographic information system). They have 1700 different maps of the region, everything from satellite photos to comprehensive plan documents. Essentially what the goal is for an I-35W corridor is to have zoning land staffings and land use. For City use are items such as commercial buildings that are up for sale, or lease. Mayor Coughlin also attended a meeting on the airport discussions at the State office building, with our representative Barbara (Hockey, and Steve Novak. Carrie Schmidt and Chuck Whiting also attended the Rotary Club at the Mermaid this last week and appreciate the rotary club extending their welcome. Mayor Coughlin also attended the business open house as most of the Council and staff did this past Wednesday. Mayor Coughlin thanks the business leaders who showed up. Mayor Coughlin extends his thank you to the entire community for showing up and making our grand opening of the community center a great success. r Ms. Thomason has no reports. Ms. Thomason comments on the • community center and the positive feedback on that and the good suggestions. Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Stigney stated he attended a planning commission meeting as liaison, and the majority of the meeting was rather time consuming. Time was spent going through transportation element of the comprehensive plan. They really delved into, line by line. They are doing an extensive update and they are very conscientious about it. Another factor talked about was the realignment Edgewood Drive, which is on the agenda for this evening and some thoughts on the ponding issue. Mr. Stigney also stated he attended the business luncheon and the open house at the community center yesterday. Mr. Whiting requests 9-H be taken off the agenda. Mr. Long stated one update on the airport issue. • CONSENT AGENDA 6A. Approve just and correct claims. 6B. Approval of contractor licenses. 6C. Approve resolution 5299, approving appeal by Michael Tabias, 8111, Eastwood Road, of a variance denial. 6D. Approve resolution 5306, authorizing the acquisition of a use deed from Ramsey County for drainage purposes on the tax forfeit property, legally described as the lot 3, block 3, green field pond. 6E. Approve resolution 5308; authorizing staff surplus aforementioned, City property. 6F. Set public hearing, and second reading for Monday, February 8, at 7:00 p.m., for the ordinance number 626, relating to changing planning commission membership to nine members, amending chapter 401.0, subparagraph one, Mounds View municipal code. 6G. Set a public hearing and second reading for Monday, February • 8, at 7:05 p.m., for ordinance 627, relating to changing the Park and Recreation commission membership to nine members, • amending chapter 405.02, subparagraph one, of the Mounds View municipal code. Mr. Marty requested removal of item A and D. Mr. Quick requested item C be removed. Motion/Second: Marty/Stigney. Approve items B, E, F and G of Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 3 the consent agenda. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays - 0. Mr. Marty stated on page one, item 12704, account number. Mr. Marty questions the use of Air Touch Cellular phone use. Communication can be done by radio. Mr. Marty questions check number 12649, law enforcement labor. Union dues January 1. Mr. Marty requests information on that, • too. ITEM 6A Motion/Second: Stigney/Thomason. Motion to approve item 6A. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Ayes - 0. Motion carries. ITEM 6C Motion/Second: Coughlin/Marty. Approval of resolution 5299. Mr. Marty stated this is rewarding an individual for not following through on a building permit and this action that the Council will be taking will weaken the vote and make it more difficult for staff to deal with such situations. VOTE: Ayes - 4. Nays-1. Mr. Quick voted Nay. ITEM 6D • Mr. Marty questioned, the last ~~whereas as the City engineer and the director of public works both recommend, do we have a City engineer?" • Mayor Coughlin motions approving. Motion/Second: Marty/Stigney. Authorizing acquisition of use deed from Ramsey County for drainage purposes on property. Resolution 5306. Ayes - 5. Nays-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 4 RESIDENTS' REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road asks if there any cars that are being washed under somebody's personal use or their personal car, • and charging this to the City. Mr. Whiting stated he does not know of any personal use of City vehicles. Mr. Whiting stated employees are allowed to wash City cars. Frank Boehm discussed passing of the 3o raise for City employees. There seemed to be a problem with some people about giving a 30 pay raise and Mr. Whiting mentioned that he would give up his 30 raise. Mr. Boehm asks if Mr. Whiting gets a 3o pay raise like all the other staff. Mayor Coughlin stated that he put this on the work agenda for the work session the next meeting and there was some discussion and ultimately there was some consensus to say the resolution that we passed did not exclude Mr. Whiting from getting his 3o raise. Mr. Whiting stated it was an awkward situation but he spoke out of his conviction that that was the option that should be done. Mr. Whiting believes that his wage and his performance ought to be evaluated separate from the rest of the employees. Mr. Boehm added that he hopes the Council sees fit to give Mr. Whiting a raise. The Council wants this to be a first class • city, when people go around knocking on the doors you want to make Mounds View a first class city, and to make Mounds View a first class city, you have to have first class people working for • you. If you are going to spend 5, 10, $20,000 to find a police chief, and if he knows his chance of getting a pay raise every one, two, or three years are kind of low, you might not get the best, Like Mounds View is looking for. Sherry Gunn, 8120 Railroad Court. Ms. Gunn mentions about the Mermaid deal. Ms. Gunn would hate to see it "fall through the cracks" and disappear. It has been mentioned that they are getting a free gift. Ms. Gunn does not agree with this. They are in a tough district already. They have put their money into the pot. This money has built us a wonderful community and we have used tiff money to bring in companies outside to build here. I think we should seriously look at giving them their tiff money to put this deal through and keep them there, and to expand their business and open it up to bring in more jobs for our community, cleaning up that corner. A nice hotel. As far as it being competition for banquet, I don't see it. It is going to be two Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 5 . different clienteles. Our room is smaller, their room is going to be bigger and probably more expensive. We are going to have more weddings, they are going to have more business, seminars, etc. As far as direct competition, I don't see that being a threat to our community. Mayor Coughlin added he met this morning with John the developer that is working on that and we discussed elements both of the financing packet from his perspective and the project at large. It is certainly still being discussed and hopefully all parties can come to some sort of agreement and move forward with it. It is going to be an ongoing thing. Item 9A. First reading of ordinance 626, relating to changing the planning commission membership to nine members, amending chapter 401.02, subparagraph one, Mounds View Municipal Code. Carrie Schmidt stated: In planning the review of the membership of the commission, it was determined that we currently have the option in our code of having seven to nine members on the planning commission, as discussed at the prior Council meeting work session. Council and staff said it would be in the best interest to solidify this number into nine, so there is no confusion about whether or not we have any vacancies or not. So you have in front of you an ordinance relating to changing the municipal code from having seven members to nine members on the planning and zoning commission. Also, in front of you, you have • ordinance 627 related to changing the Park and Recreation Commission to nine members from current membership of seven. This changes municipal code chapter 40502, subdivision one. Motion/Second: Marty/Thomason. Approval of ordinance 626. Mayor Coughlin adds a friendly amendment to waive the reading. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays-0. Motion carries. ITEM 9B Ordinance 627, relating to changing the Park and Recreation. Motion/Second: Stigney/Marty. Motion to waive the reading. Ordinance 627, relating to changing the Park and Recreation. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays-0. Motion carries. ITEM 9C Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 6 Consideration of hiring Carl New, consultant for the Council staff retreat. Carrie Schmidt stated: We received today a packet of information from Carl New, a facilitator that has worked for the City of Mounds View a few years back and who also spoke with the league conference that three of our Council members were at this weekend. The fees for Mr. New's services are $3500, plus reimbursement for travel expenses and materials. He has given a list of dates that he is available for a Friday and Saturday retreat, and if the Council so desires will move for authorization to look for another consultant or to enter into an agreement with Mr. New for the Council staff retreat. Mayor Coughlin adds we would like to be 13, in light of the fact that Mr. New's of the dates that he had given over the snatched upright before he wrote this m work session, sooner rather than later, • temporarily, and to pencil it in for 24 the Council may or may not do tonight. pencilled in on March 12- memo even said that one phone to Carrie was smo. Council said at to lock that in hours in light of what Motion/Second: Quick/Marty. Motion to hire Carl New for the dates of March 12-13, Friday and Saturday, and needs for his two- day workshops, $3500, plus reimbursements for materials, clerical charges, travel expenses. Mayor Coughlin adds that he cannot say enough about the style, insight and the passion that Carl New has. Mayor Coughlin expresses hope that this is money well-spent, and hopes through this retreat a vision for the future can be seen. Mr. Marty stated that Mr. New has a lot to offer in mapping out a strategy for the future that would be beneficial for the City. Mr. Stigney stated Carl New was the one that did our focus 2000. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays - 0. Motion carries. ITEM 9D Consideration of resolution 5307 authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with the Brimeyer Group for Police Chief recruitment services. • Carry Schmidt stated: Jim Brimeyer attended our last work session and went over his recruitment office. As you know, our Police Chief is retiring on April 1 and staff believes it is in Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 7 the best interest of the City to hire a consultant and Mr. Brimeyer seems to be the best for this job. He outlines that he reports his services ranging to $13,000 to $16,000 with an additional $2000 to $3000 in administrative expenses. He also indicated that this figure could be less. The bottom range depending on how much work staff can do. At this time, staff is looking for approval of resolution 5307. Motion/Second: Quick/Marty. Motion to approve resolution 5307 authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with the Brimeyer Group for Police Chief recruitment services. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays - 0. Motion carries. • ITEM 9E Consideration of resolution 5305. A resolution approving a minor • subdivision for a lot split, for 8444 Greenwood Drive. Requested by Dan Danielson, representing property owners, Ernest and Marlene Danielson. ATTORNEY: Dan Danielson is requesting a minor subdivision of his parents' property, located at 8444 Greenwood Drive. The City subdivision regulations allow for a minor subdivision in the event that property does not exceed one acre in size, in that property does not result in more than two lots being created. This subdivision will create two lots. All of the dimensional criteria for the this minor subdivision are met with the code. 75 feet is required for minimum street frontage for an interior lot, as opposed to 78. Eleven square feet is required for a lot. The proposed legal descriptions and certificate of survey have included review by City staff as well as the City attorney, and we have easement documents that do dedicate to this City, the drainage and the utility easements that are shown on the certificate of survey which are five feet on the side property lines and 10 feet front and back. With any subdivision of land, there is an issue that needs to be discussed, and that is the park dedication requirement, according to the City code, chapter 120402, ten percent (100) the value of the land is required for park dedication and that typically would be a five percent (50) . dedication fee for a minor subdivision, but this is where T misspoke earlier because it is an excess of one acre, ten percent (100) is required according to the City code. The Ramsey County assessor's office indicates that the value of the land on this property is $47,700. Ten percent of that is $4700. In my staff report to you, I have a mistype there, it shows $4471, actually it should be $4770, and that does throw off the final dedication Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 8 amount. The dedication amount is shown to be $1574, which takes into consideration 66% deduction for the area of land that is underneath the existing house. That amount according to our City code, would need to be paid. On January 6, this was approved by the planning commission. On 5/7/99, the resolution was recommended to the City Council that this minor subdivision be approved subject to stipulations that are present in this resolution 5305. Those stipulations are simply that the applicant make a park dedication payment as indicated in the staff report before any building permits can be issued. The certificate of survey and resolution of approving a minor subdivision and easement documents all be reported to Ramsey . County. I would repeat just for the record that according to the City code, according to Ramsey County assessor's office records, the appropriate park dedication fee in this minor subdivision was $1574. Staff is recommending that you approve 5305 resolution, and resident Dan Danielson is in the audience if there are any questions. Dan Danielson, 8444 Greenwood Drive. Mr. Daniel requests consideration on the amount of the actual park fee being quite high. There have been prior subdivisions on this property in the past. They have been residents of the City of Mounds View since 1962. I understand many of the adjoining communities and also properties by the acre are approximately around $700 for a typical park fee. Mr. Daniel requests consideration of decreasing the amount of the actual park fee. Mayor Coughlin asks Mr. Long if there is something in the code. Mr. Long states he looked at the code and it is not an option. It is a specified amount in the ordinance. Five percent of market value on less than an acre, and 10 percent on parcels bigger than an acre. Mayor Coughlin stated this is the code and this is what must be paid. Mayor Coughlin sympathizes with six prior subdivisions in the same lot that is occurring. This is the code and we are here to enforce the code. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road. Question directed to the Mayor to ask the attorney if the park fee has ever been challenged, or any court case about a park fee? Mr. Long indicated not to his knowledge in the City of Mounds View. There have been challenges to park dedication fees in other cities, I think typically, it was happening with commercial developers buying to require that the City show the basis for arriving at the cash value. Mr. Long states the cases he is Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 9 aware of, in Minnesota, all City ordinances have been upheld. The cities have authority to do it, but the percentage is what has been called to question in different cases. In some cities there are higher requirements for dollar values and percentages, and that has been subject to litigation. To Mr. Long s knowledge, they have all been successfully upheld. Julie Olson, 2663 Lake Court Circle. Ms. Olson stated in records . to the park dedication dollar amount, when the City just got done doing seven subdivisions on the O'Neil property, did Mrs. O'Neil ~~ then, in fact, pay that same amount, times seven, for the property where the movie theater was going to be'? Mr. Whiting stated there was a park dedication fee of over $102,000. Mr. Quick asks, "On this piece of property, have they ever paid for park dedication fee?" ATTORNEY: I looked through the records on that and to my knowledge, to the best of our ability to research that, there has been no park dedication fee for the prior subdivisions, which was something that we wanted to find, but we were not able to find any record of any previous park dedication. Mr. Quick responded the owners of this lot must have owned an original five acre flat at one time. Motion/Second: Quick/Stigney. Approval of resolution number 5305, a resolution approving a minor subdivision of 8444 Greenwood Drive, requested by Dan Danielson, representing property owners Ernest and Marlene Danielson. Mr. Stigney offers an amendment. Stipulations covered in the resolution. Mayor Coughlin would like to make this official, and add this to the resolution. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays-0. Motion carries. ITEM 9F Consideration of approval of Edgewood realignment, trunk Highway 10, signal plans, and specifications. Rick Jopke stated: Mayor and members of the council, the previous Council has authorized STH to pursue with the Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 10 development of the plans to specifications for the realignment of Edgewood Drive, adjacent to City Hall and construction of the new signalized intersection on Highway 10 to line up and continue on • through the theater property across the street. This matter has been discussed previously at a work session in general terms. SCH has proceeded to develop a set of plans and the Council has had access to those in your Council offices and I have additional sets. The action that we are asking for tonight is for the Council to authorize that those plans be submitted to MNDOT for their approval process, and get their comments. According to the original schedule that was submitted by SCH. This matter will come back to the City Council on February 22 to actually approve final plans and inspect authorize advertisement for bids. We would like this plan submitted to MNDOT for their review. Steve Campbell from SCH is here if you questions. Mr. Marty asks if this has been presented to the Council work session. Mr. Jopke responded not to this Council, but the previous Council. Mr. Marty stated he has a number of questions about it. Mr. Marty stated he made some calls down to Tony Bennett's office, to try to get some information from him, and Tony Bennett, who is our Ramsey County commissioner, he and Paul (Kirkwald) is director of public works, they are both coming to our work session this next Monday and that could probably delay a lot of the questions. Mr. Marty said this wasn't presented to at least • three of us on this Council, and Mr. Marty does have questions about this. Mr. Marty requested instead of taking Council time, this could be done in the work session next Monday. Mr. Marty would like to move to postpone to the February 8 Council meeting, so we can meet with Tony Bennett and Paul (Kirkwald) next Monday night at the work session. Motion/Second: Marty/Thomason. Motion to postpone consideration of the realignment discussion until the next meeting, which is February 8, and also direct staff to present this at the Council work session February 1. Mr. Quick stated we have a county commissioner coming, and he is not aware of that. Mayor Coughlin stated he failed to mention in his report that he had extended an invitation to our commissioner, Tony Bennett, to speak before our Council at a work session and in talking with his assistant said that February 1 work session would be a good time for Tony's schedule to be here. Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 11 • Mr. Quick asked if the county commissioner and someone who deals with county roads, are they going to have any information on U.S. Trunk Highway. Mr. Quick stated postponing this will just slow down the process of realigning the street. Mayor Coughlin stated of Highway 10 is being in late spring, early Rick Jopke stated that turn back could occur a funding of State, we it is his understanding that this section turned back to the county level some time summer. the word staff has received is that the as soon as July of this year. Since it is still have to approve plans. Mr. Whiting: (inaudible) Mr. Stigney stated the ponding issue dealing with this road needs some additional discussion. Wendell Smith, representing Anthony properties of Dallas, Texas. Mr. Smith objects to postponing and tabling approving the preliminary plans. Mr. Smith states he was working on this project for over three years and have been working with Council and City staff during that period of time and in good faith we have followed through in working with the resolutions that the City has passed in regards to this. We have spent millions of dollars on this project. This project is now scheduled for • completion April 15. We have moved ahead based on good faith working with the Council and City staff. You have before you a schedule that was provided by SEH, your architectural engineering consultant with the City in which construction is to begin on the intersection, of the "right in," and "right out," to the theater as of April 12, 1999. In order to get to that point in which the theater then could open no later than May 1, 1999, by tabling or postponing the giving of these plans to the State of Minnesota, you are jeopardizing the opening of that theater and the ability of that theater to do its business. Mr. Smith stated if this is tabled tonight and we find ourselves not being able to open on time based on that, then we have to look at our legal avenues we must have to take from the City standpoint individually so that we may progress based on what the City has stated. Gary Collis, 2390 Pinewood Circle. Mr. Collis stated: "This intersection looks good, but he proposes that this be postponed because of not addressing Edgewood Drive, up at County Road I. It is a very dangerous intersection right now. (nIe have rush hour traffic where you can't even cross the street, and we have the community center over here now. We are going to have a movie theater. There is going to be a lot of traffic from the north part of Mounds View coming down Edgewood, they are all going to Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 12 be using County Road I and Edgewood Drive intersection. I propose a four-way stop at that intersection should be part of this project. Mr. Collis stated all of this traffic will come into a funnel at County Road I and Edgewood. We have children that can't even cross the street now at certain times of day. The community center cannot be used during certain times of day because of the traffic. It is only going to get worse with this nice street that is going to be put in. Mr. Collis stated this should be postponed to make sure that intersection is part of this project." Mayor Coughlin stated the discussion it needs to be a separate issue. It doesn't have to be put off indefinit discuss that and there is fair merit Coughlin requests staff to make note discuss this issue. is certainly legitimate, but can be a related issue, it sly. We can certainly to the comments. Mayor of that so we can further Motion/Second: Motion to postpone approval of Edgewood realignment, and TH signal plans and specifications. Motion/Second: Quick/Coughlin. Motion to have a five minute recess. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nayes - 0. RESUME MEETING Mayor Coughlin calls the meeting back to order. Mr. Quick requests Mr. Long what legal ramifications what the City could incur on the intersection. Mr. Long stated it is a call of where the developer has obviously raised the issue that if there is a delay whether it is one week or longer, if they suffer some economic damage, they would at least maintain their option to seek remedies from the City and have claims like that against cities. Some have been successful and some have not. In fact, the vast majority are not. The issue is really a question of whether or not the delay would be considered a reasonable delay, whether or not it would be a good faith basis for it, so it is really quite a factual determination. Mr. Long stated he cannot tell you that delaying • it tonight would be absolutely risk-free, but I can also tell you that in the analysis of risk, at least with cases I am aware of, that there is some discretion Council for another two-week quite different from some of Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 13 going to be a granted to a new delay to get the information. It is the cases in what are considered unreasonable delays which have been months at a time. So I don't want to tell you that there is absolutely no risk because the delay could cause litigation and, of course, defend the Council. We believe we could win that, but I think it is a fair question, and I don't want to tell you that not to absolutely delay it tonight for liability reasons. If the Council wishes to delay it, for the purposes stated of having two weeks to study the issue, with the new Council to see the documents. I understand from talking to one of the Council members there were no documents available. If litigation did result from that, we certainly would defend it, and I think we would be successful. Rick Jopke stated: I see on the schedule here that the final approval of the plans will be February 22, 1999. By that time, we will have all the information locked down in black and white • for the Council to review. Mr. Jopke stated that it is certainly our intent that we will have the information from the state. Mr. Quick stated we will have four weeks to research this. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road. Mr. McCarty stated this light is critical, not only to the operation of the theater, and keeping that traffic on Highway 10 as much as we can, but it is also very important to the community center. Mr. McCarty stated the gentleman who spoke earlier concerned about the traffic on Edgewood and County Road I is correct. Mr. McCarty states he travels that road as well, There are rush hour problems there. Mr. McCarty's biggest concern is some of the good faith things that have occurred over the last three years as Mr. Smith has already alluded, the developer at one time in an offer of good faith voluntarily withdrew his rights to access public infrastructure, that being H2 and Long Lake Road, hoping that would in some way further the project. The City agreed to that. The neighbors agreed to that. They thought that was best that we can do at the time. As we all know, MNDOT turned all of that around with their requirements. Mr. McCarty stated if we don't go forward with the light, and I am questioning the reasoning for postponement, if there is any thought that there could be a change in the access to H2 or Long Lake Road, I would suggest • that you very careful considering the constitutional rights of this property owner to access public infrastructure. Mr. McCarty states there is nothing we can do to petition the developer and ask for his cooperation. Mr. McCarty stated the timing of the light, if it is delayed any further, we will get passed the opening of the theater and we will realize our worst fears if that light is not in place, ready to regulate and encourage traffic to use 10 rather than H2. Mr. McCarty indicates it is hard to do this when there are three new Council members who haven't had the opportunity to go into the detail that the Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 14 previous council had. Mr. McCarty stated you have to trust that the previous Council did their homework and they made the decision as they best could, in the best interest of the City. Mr. McCarty indicated he would like the Council to go forward and get this light in as quickly as you can, not only for the control of the traffic off that theater, but all of its considerable worth in getting our traffic north/south across highway 10 to our community center. Mayor Coughlin stated he appreciates Mr. McCarty comments. Mr. McCarty stated Council Thomason is in a difficult position here. We all know how hard she worked trying to make sure that her neighborhood was protected against some negative impacts and this will do exactly that if it is in Indian Pine and in coordination with the opening of the theater, she will end up realizing some of her worst fears and nightmares as well. There may be colleague considerations, too. Mr. Coughlin stated because of Mr. McCarty's former position, two extra minutes was given. Mr. Wendell stated what is being considered tonight is a preliminary approval of the plans and specifications in order that they may be sent to MNDOT. You are not signing off and finalizing plans. These are preliminary plans and specifications which can be changed before your February 22 date. The purpose of approving the preliminary plans are simply to get these plans and specifications to MNDOT for their comments so that staff can give you their comments, for February 22. Steve Cambdeski stated tonight's meeting preliminary plans and specifications for permits and that is what is significant, with the necessary permits for access to process is going to be fairly involved a is just approval of the MNDOT approval and with the MSA funding and Highway 10. MNDOT nd we would like extra time. The reason is we expect back and forth paperwork between MNDOT and the Council. A few extra weeks were put in. Preliminary approval is needed, to get this off to MNDOT so they can start the process. This has to go across about 10 desks over there before we get it back and it can take quite a while. This does not preclude us coming back to the work session for February 8 meeting, assuming approval of the plans. The final approval comes a month from tonight, February 22, and that is when we will be able to make the final resolution authorizing the plans and specifications. Mr. Marty asks when would the MSA and everything else that becomes official, on February 22? Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 15 Mr. Camdeski replied that would be when the resolution would be presented. That is when we will start the legal process. Mr. Marty asked if questions can be asked in the meantime, if any, with Mr. Camdeski stating yes. • Mr. Stigney questioned if we went ahead with these preliminary plans that during the work session or even the next Council meeting we could do some final minor tweaking. Mr. Camdeski indicated that is correct. Mr. Stigney has a question of the ponding drainage issue, and asks if this is the minor tweaking. Mr. Camdeski reports at this point it is. Mr. Jopke indicates that this is not something MNDOT is going to get involved with. Primarily, they are going to look at the MSA, the alignment cross section of the road, and then for the permitting process they are going to look at the access points, turn lanes and things like that. The storm sewer is not something that they are going to be concerned with. Julie Olson stated that some of the questions that will be still out there as Councilman Stigney stated, "If this plan goes to MNDOT on approval and the realignment would need to be different than what was proposed, as far as changing the alignment, that was not going to possible at further work sessions or after the Council would have review of prior information." Ms. Olson asked if this was correct. Mr. Camdeski stated the alignment is not going to change. "The design needs to align up with the existing theater entrance, so that is something, that I feel safe to say, is not going to change." VOTE: Ayes. - 1 (Thomason}. Nays-4. The request fails. Motion/Second: Quick/Coughlin. Motion to approve Edgewood realignment and TH 10 signal plans and specifications. VOTE: Ayes - 4. Nays - 1 {Thomason). The motion carries. ITEM 9G Consider approving the catering and food service agreement with Elegant Thymes Catering. Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 16 Mr. Long offered additional provisions to be included in light of some of the other agreements that we are going to be entering into. If there are additional concerns, we can certainly address them between next Monday, and on the 8th, and we won't really lose any time. There are at least two provisions that did not get in this draft. Mr. Marty stated he could contact Bruce, or Scott, in the meantime, and get these answers. Mr. Quick requested research on the possibility of installing a stop sign at the intersection of Edgewood and County Road I. Motion/Second: Quick/Coughlin. Consider approving the catering and food service agreement with Elegant Thymes Catering. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays-0. Motion carries. CALL MEETING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Monday January 25, 1999. ROLL CALL Mr. Whiting calls roll: president Coughlin, commissioners Stigney, Thomason, Marty, and Quick. Mayor Coughlin stated the only item before the authority is consideration of resolution No. 99EDA, 102, appointing an economic development commission members. These are three members previously on the commission, and as the authority of President would present before you these three names to be considered for terms. There are two additional seats that have yet to be filled and hopefully I will have those names later. Mr. Coughlin motions to approve these three previous members on the commission to be considered as commission members for EDA. Motion/Second: Thomason/Stigney. Motion to approve members for EDA. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays - 0. REPORTS No reports. Mounds View City Council January 25, 1999 Page 17 Mr. Coughlin motions to adjourns meeting. The meeting is adjourned Mayor Dan Coughlin's corrections to the January 25, 1999 council meeting minutes Page 1 6th paragraph under Reports. 2nd sentence: "Ms. Thomason comments on"; comments to be changed to commented. Faye 2 Add the following right before ITEM 6A: "Mr. Whiting stated that the city collects dues from union employees' payroll checks and then sends one payment to the union." Page 3 Under ITEM 6C. Add after "approval of resolution 5299" the following: "Granting a variance for two curb cuts to Mr. Michael Tobias, 8111 Eastwood Road." Under ITEM 6D . After the first sentence, add: "Mr. Whiting stated that SEH is the city's consulting engineer at present." Strike the next sentence "Mayor Coughlin motions approving" -The mayor usually asks for a motion on an item brought before the council and thus shouldn't be added to this item only. Under Residents Requests: Please bold any names of residents being noted {Jahnke & Boehm). Also, add "2096 Terrace Drive" after Frank Boehm's name. Page 4 Add after the first paragraph: "Mr. Whiting suggested that the status of his raise be discussed at the time of his annual performance review (in April)" The 2nd paragraph, first sentence under "Sherry Gunn" should read: "Mayor Coughlin added he met this morning with John Siebert, the developer that is working on that project and discussed elements of the financing packet from his perspective and the project at large." Page 5 Under ITEM 9B. 2nd paragraph should read: "Motion/Second: Stigney/Marty. Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance 627 relating to changing the Parks and Recreation Commission to 9 members and waiving the reading." Under ITEM 9C. 1st paragraph -Carl NEU is the proper spelling of that last name. The 3rd paragraph should be rewritten as follows: "Mayor Caughiin added that he directed Cari Schmidt to contact Mr. Neu and preliminarially pencil in our council retreat far March 12-13th. This is in light of the fact that Mr. Neu's memo to us stated that even one of the dates that he had given to Cari over the phone was already snatched up. Mayor Coughlin cited that the council at its work session stated that the retreat should be sooner rather than later and because of this chose to reserve those dates temporarily. Those dates were penciled in for 24 hours in light of what the Council may or may not do at this meeting. " Page b ITEM 9E - 2nd Paragraph. Change "Bob Long" to "Jim Ericson" 6th sentence presently reads "Eleven square feet are required for alot" -Staff should supply the correct number and have this inserted into the corrected minutes. Last full sentence on page 6 starts "On 5/7/99" Staff will need to confirm, but I assume this was supposed to be "On 2/17/99" Page 7 Under Dan Danielson. 1st paragraph. Last two sentences should read: "I understand many of the adjoining communities also assess by the acre and are approximately $700 for a typical park fee. Mr Danielson ...." 2nd paragraph under Dan Danielson -add to the end of the first sentence: "that would allow for flexibility on this park dedication fee." 3rd paragraph same section. 2nd sentence should read "Mayor Coughlin sympathizes with six prior subdivisions of the same lot having occurred." Page g lst paragraph on the page. Change "Bob Long:" to "Jim Ericson" 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence should read: "Mayor Coughlin wauld like to make this official, and by unanimous consent of the council adds this to the resolution." Final paragraph on the page. At the end of the long 2nd sentence change "could probably delay ..." to "could probably answer" Page 9 5th full paragraph. 2nd sentence should read: "Since it is funded by the state, we still need to have plans approved." Page 10 Strike 2nd full paragraph: "motion/second: motion to postpone approval..." This was stated already on page 9. 3rd full paragraph. Add after " Motion to have a five minute recess." Without objection from the council, a five minute recess was granted. Strike "Vote: Ayes -5. Naves -0." from the end of this section. Under RESUME MEETING. 2nd paragraph should read "Mr. Quick. asks Mr. Long what legal ramifications the city could incur an the intersection if action was postponed." 3rd paragraph under Resume Meeting -end of the 1st sentence. Change "...from the City and have claims like that..." to "...from the City and there have been claims like that..." Page 11. 2nd paragraph from bottom should read: "Mayor Coughlin stated he appreciates Mr. McCarty's comments." Last paragraph on page -first sentence. Change "Mr. McCarty stated Council Thomason is in..." to "Mr. McCarty stated that Council Member Thomason is in...." Page 12. Change all references to "Steve Cambdeski" to "Steve Cambell" (5 changes needed} Pase 13. 2nd paragraph -change "Steve Cambdeski" to "Steve Cambell" 3rd paragraph -Add after "Vote:" an postponement of consideration of approval for Edgewood Dr. realignment." Under ITEM 9G: Add new 4th paragraph stating "consideration to approve the catering agreement was moved to the next council meeting." Strike the line: "MotionlSecond: Quick/Coughlin consider approving the catering and food service agreement with Elegant Thymes Catering" Above the line "Mr. Quick requested research on the possibility..." add "Mayor Coughlin asked if there was any additional items before the council." Add after "Mr. Quick requested research on the possibility...": "Motion/Second: Quick/ Coughlin. Directing staff to research the possibility of installing stop signs at the intersection of Edgewood and County Road L" (next line) "Vote: Ayes - 5. Nays - 0. Motion Carries" Add: "Mayor Coughlin, with the approval of the council, adjourned the meeting." CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 25,1999 - 7:00 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER UNAPPRO~/cp Mayor Coughlin calls meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Coughlin, Council Members, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. REPORTS Gary Quick discussed cable commission meeting and their programming for next year and they are looking for new people to come in and work with them, and requested Mr. Quick learn how to run a camera. Rob Marty attended League of Minnesota Cities newly elected leadership conference on Friday and Saturday. There was good information that Mr. Marry would like to bxing that back to the Council. Mayor Coughlin mentioned that he and Mr. Whiting went to an I-35W corridor meeting on GIS (geographic information system). They have 1700 different maps of the region, everything from satellite photos to comprehensive plan documents. Essentially the goal is for the I-35W corridor is to have staff for zoning and land use issues. Mayor Coughlin also attended a meeting on the airport discussions at the State office building, with our representative Barbara Haake and Steve Novak. Cari Schmidt and Chuck Whiting also attended the Rotary Club at the Mermaid this last week and appreciate the rotary club extending their welcome. Mayor Coughlin attended the business open house as most of the Council and staff did this past Wednesday. He extends his thank you to the entire community for showing up and making our grand opening of the community center a great success. Ms. Thomason had no report. Ms. Thomason comments on the community center and the positive feedback on that and the good suggestions. Mr. Stigney stated he attended a planning commission meeting as liaison, and the majority of the meeting was rather time consuming. Time was spent going through the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, which they really delved into, line by line. They are doing an extensive 1/25/99- City Council minutes -1 update and are very conscientious about it. Another factor talked about was the realignment of Edgewood Drive, and some thoughts on the ponding issue. Mr. Stigney also stated he attended the business luncheon and the open house at the community center yesterday. Mr. Whiting requests 9-H be taken off the agenda. Mr. Long gave one update on the airport issue. CONSENT AGENDA 6A. Approve just and correct claims. 6B. Approval of contractor licenses. 6C. Approve resolution 5299, approving appeal by Michael Tablas, 8111, Eastwood Road, of a variance denial. 6D. Approve resolution 5306, authorizing the acquisition of a use deed from Ramsey County for drainage purposes on the tax forfeit property, legally described as the lot 3, block 3, green field pond. 6E. Approve resolution 5308; authorizing staff surplus aforementioned, City property. 6F. Set public hearing, and second reading for Monday, February 8, at 7:00 p.m., for the ordinance number 626, relating to changing planning commission membership to nine members, amending chapter 401.0, subparagraph one, Mounds View municipal code. . 6G. Set a public hearing and second reading for Monday, February 8, at 7:05 p.m., for di 6 or nance 27, relating to changing the Park and Recreation commission membership to nine members, amending chapter 405.02, subparagraph one, of the Mounds View municipal code. Mr. Marty requested removal of item A and D. Mr. Quick requested item C be xemoved. Motion/Second: Marty/Stigney. Approve items B, E, F and G of the consent agenda. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays - 0. Mr. Marty stated on page one, item 12704, account number. Mr. Marty questions the use of Air Touch Cellular phone use. Communication can be done by radio. Mr. Marry questions check number 12649, Law Enforcement Labor Union dues January 1. Mr. Marry requests information on that, too. ITEM 6A Motion/Second: Stigney/Thomason. Motion to approve item 6A. 1/25/99- City Council minutes -2 • VOTE: Ayes - 5. Ayes - 0. Motion carries. ITEM 6C Motion/Second: Coughlin/Marty. Approval of resolution 5299. Mr. Marty stated this is rewarding an individual for not following through on a building permit and this action that the Council will be taking will weaken the vote and make it more difficult for staff to deal with such situations. VOTE: Ayes - 4. Nays-1. Mr. Quick voted Nay. I EM 6D Mr. Marty questioned, the last "whereas as the City engineer and the director of public works both recommend, do we have a City engineer?" Mayor Coughlin motions approving. Motion/Second: Marty/Stigney. Authorizing acquisition of use deed from Ramsey County for drainage purposes on property. Resolution 5306. • Ayes - 5. Nays-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. RESIDENTS' REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road asks if there any cars that are being washed under somebody's personal use or their personal car, and charging this to the City. Mr. Whiting stated he does not know of any personal use of City vehicles. Mr. Whiting stated employees are allowed to wash City cars. Frank Boehm discussed passing of the 3% raise for City employees. There seemed to be a problem with some people about giving a 3% pay raise and Mr. Whiting mentioned that he would give up his 3% raise. Mr. Boehm asked if Mr. Whiting received a 3% pay raise like all the other staff. Mayor Coughlin stated that he put this on the agenda for the work session at the last meeting, that there was some discussion and ultimately there was some consensus to say the resolution that we passed did not exclude Mr. Whiting from getting his 3% raise. 1/25/99- City Council minutes -3 • Mr. Whiting stated it was an awkward situation but he spoke out of his conviction that that was the option that should be done. Mr. Whiting believes that his wage and his performance ought to be evaluated separate from the rest of the employees. Mr. Boehm added that he hopes the Council sees fit to give Mr. Whiting a raise. The Council wants this to be a first class city, when people go around knocking on the doors you want to make Mounds View a first class city, and to make Mounds View a first class city, you have to have first class people working for you. If you are going to spend 5, 10, $20,000 to find a police chief, and if he knows his chance of getting a pay raise every one, two, or three years are kind of low, you might not get the best, like Mounds View is looking for. Sherry Gunn, 8120 Railroad Court. Ms. Gunn comments on the Mermaid deal, and would hate to see it "fall through the cracks" and disappear. It has been mentioned that they are getting a free gift. Ms. Gunn does not agree with this. They are in a tough district already. They have put their money into the pot. This money has built us a wonderful community center and we have used TIF money to bring in companies outside to build here. I think we should seriously look at giving them their TIF money to put this deal through and keep them there, and to expand their business and open it up to bring in more jobs for our community, cleaning up that corner. As far as it being competition for banquet, I don't see it. It is going to be two different types of clientele. Our room is smaller, their room is going to be bigger and probably more expensive. We are going to have more weddings, they are going to have more business, seminars, etc. As • far as direct competition, I don't see that being a threat to our community. Mayor Coughlin added he met this morning with John ,the developer that is working on that and we discussed elements both of the financing packet from his perspective and the project at large. It is certainly still being discussed and hopefully all parties can come to some sort of agreement and move forward with it. It is going to be an ongoing thing. Item 9A. First reading of ordinance 626, relating to changing the planning commission membership to nine members, amending chapter 401.02, subparagraph one, Mounds View Municipal Code. Cari Schmidt stated: In planning the review of the membership of the commission, it was determined that we currently have the option in our code of having seven to nine members on the planning commission. Council indicated that it would be in the best interest to solidify this number into nine, so there is no confusion about whether or not we have any vacancies. This ordinance relates to changing the municipal code from having seven members to nine members on the planning and zoning commission. Also, in front of you, you have ordinance 627 related to changing the Park and Recreation Commission to nine members from current membership of seven. This changes municipal code chapter 405.02, subdivision one. Motion/Second: Marty/Thomason. Approval of ordinance 626. • Mayor Coughlin adds a friendly amendment to waive the reading. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays-0. Motion carries. ITEM 9B Ordinance 627, relating to changing the Park and Recreation. Motion/Second: Stigney/Marty. Motion to waive the reading. Ordinance 627, relating to changing the Park and Recreation. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays-0. Motion carries. ITEM 9C Consideration of hiring Carl New, consultant for. the Council staff retreat. Cari Schmidt stated: We received today a packet of information from Carl Neu, a facilitator that has worked for the City of Mounds View before. The fees for Mr. Neu's services are $3500, plus reimbursement for travel expenses and materials. He has given a list of dates that he is available for a Friday and Saturday retreat, and if the Council so desires will move for authorization to look for another consultant or to enter into an agreement with Mr. Neu for the Council staff retreat. Mayor Coughlin adds we would like to be penciled in on March 12-13, in light of the fact that Mr. Neu's memo even said that one of the dates that he had given over the phone to Cari was snatched up already. Council said at work session, sooner rather than later, to lock that in temporarily, and to pencil it in for 24 hours in light of what the Council may or may not do tonight. Motion/Second: Quick/Marty. Motion to hire Carl Neu for the dates of March 12-13, Friday and Saturday, and needs for his two-day workshops, $3500, plus reimbursements for materials, clerical charges, travel expenses. Mayor Coughlin adds that he cannot say enough about the style, insight and the passion that Carl Neu has. Mayor Coughlin expresses hope that this is money well-spent, and hopes through this retreat a vision for the future can be seen. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays - 0. Motion carries. TEM 9 Consideration of resolution 5307 authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with the Brimeyer Group for Police Chief recruitment services. Carl Schmidt stated: Jim Brimeyer attended our last work session and went over his recruitment process. As you know, our Police Chief is retiring on April 1 and staff believes it is in the best interest of the City to hire a consultant and Mr. Brimeyer seems to be the best for this job. He outlines that he reports his services ranging to $13,000 to $16,000 with an additional $2000 to $3000 in administrative expenses. He also indicated that this figure could be less, depending on how much work staff can do. At this time, staff is looking for approval of resolution 5307. Motion/Second: Quick/Marty. Motion to approve resolution 5307 authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with the Brimeyer Group for Police Chief recruitment services. VOTE: Ayes - S. Nays - 0. Motion carries. ITEM 9E Consideration of resolution 5305. A resolution approving a minor subdivision for a lot split, for 8444 Greenwood Drive. Requested by Dan Danielson, representing property owners, Ernest and Marlene Danielson. Bob Long: Dan Danielson is requesting a minor subdivision of his parents' property, located at 8444 Greenwood Drive. The City subdivision regulations allow for a minor subdivision in the event that properly does not exceed one acre in size, in that property does not result in more than two lots being created. This subdivision will create two lots. All of the dimensional criteria for the this minor subdivision are met with the code. 7S feet is required for minimum street frontage for an interior lot, as opposed to 78. Eleven square feet are required for a lot. The proposed legal descriptions and certificate of survey have included review by City staff as well as the City attorney, and we have easement documents that do dedicate to this City, the drainage and the utility easements that are shown on the certificate of survey which are five feet on the side property lines and 10 feet front and back. With any subdivision of land, there is an issue that needs to be discussed, and that is the park dedication requirement, according to the City code, chapter 120402, ten percent (10%) the value of the land is required for park dedication and that typically would be a five percent (S%) dedication-fee for a minor subdivision, but this is where I misspoke earlier because it is an excess of one acre, ten percent (10%) is required according to the City code. The Ramsey County assessor's office indicates that the value of the land on this property is $47,700. Ten percent of that is $4700. In my staff report to you, I have a mistype there, it shows $4471, actually it should be $4770, and that does throw off the final dedication amount. The dedication amount is shown to be $1574, which takes into consideration 66% deduction for the area of land that is underneath the existing house. That amount according to our City code, would need to be paid. On January 6, this was approved by the planning commission. On 5/7/99, the resolution was recommended to the City Council that this minor subdivision be approved subject to stipulations that are present in this resolution S30S. Those stipulations are simply that the applicant make a park dedication payment as indicated in the staff r • report before any building permits can be issued. The certificate of survey and resolution of approving a minor subdivision and easement documents all be reported to Ramsey County. I would repeat just for the record that according to the City code, according to Ramsey County assessor's office records, the appropriate park dedication fee in this minor subdivision was $1574. Staff is recommending that you approve 5305 resolution, and resident Dan Danielson is in the audience if there are any questions. Dan Danielson, 8444 Greenwood Drive. Mr. Danielson requests consideration on the amount of the actual park fee being quite high. There have been prior subdivisions on this property in the past. They have been residents of the City of Mounds View since 1962. I understand many of the adjoining communities and also properties by the acre are approximately around $700 for a typical park fee. Mr. Daniel requests consideration of decreasing the amount of the actual park fee. Mayor Coughlin asks Mr. Long if there is something in the code. Mr. Long states he looked at the code and it is not an option. It is a specified amount in the ordinance. Five percent of market value on less than an acre, and 10 percent on parcels bigger than an acre. Mayor Coughlin stated this is the code and this is what must be paid. Mayor Coughlin sympathizes with six prior subdivisions in the same lot that is occurring. This is the code and we are here to enforce the code. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road. Question directed to the Mayor to ask the attorney if the park fee has ever been challenged, or any court case about a park fee? Mr. Long indicated not to his knowledge in the City of Mounds View. There have been challenges to park dedication fees in other cities, I think typically, it was happening with commercial developers buying to require that the City show the basis for arriving at the cash value. Mr. Long. states the cases he is aware of, in Minnesota, all City ordinances have been upheld. The cities have authority to do it, but the percentage is what has been called to question in different cases. In some cities there are higher requirements for dollar values and percentages, and that has been subject to litigation. To Mr. Longs knowledge, they have all been successfully upheld. Julie Olson, 2663 Lake Court Circle. Ms. Olson stated in records to the park dedication dollar amount, when the City just got done doing seven subdivisions on the O'Neil property, did Mrs. O'Neil then, in fact, pay that same amount, times seven, for the property where the movie theater was going to be? Mr. Whiting stated there was a park dedication fee of over $102,000. Mr. Quick asks, "On this piece of property, have they ever paid for park dedication fee?" • Bob Long: I looked through the records on that and to my knowledge, to the best of our ability to research that, there has been no park dedication fee for the prior subdivisions, which was something that we wanted to find, but we were not able to find any record of any previous park dedication. Mr. Quick responded the owners of this lot must have owned an original five acre flat at one time. Motion/Second: Quick/Stigney. Approval of resolution number 5305, a resolution approving a minor subdivision of 8444 Greenwood Drive, requested by Dan Danielson, representing property owners Ernest and Marlene Danielson. Mr. Stigney offers an amendment. Stipulations covered in the resolution. Mayor Coughlin would like to make this official, and add this to the resolution. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays-0. Motion carries. ITEM 9F Consideration of approval of Edgewood realignment, trunk Highway 10, signal plans, and specifications. • Rick Jopke stated: Mayor and members of the council, the previous Council has authorized SEH fo pursue with the development of the plans to specifications for the realignment of Edgewood Drive, adjacent to City Hall and construction of the new signalized intersection on Highway 10 to Line up and continue on through the theater property across the street. This matter has been discussed previously at a work session in general terms. SEH has proceeded to develop a set of plans and the Council has had access to those in your Council offices and I have additional sets. The action that we are asking for tonight is for the Council to authorize that those plans be submitted to MNDOT for their approval process, and get their comments. According to the original schedule that was submitted by SEH. This matter will come back to the City Council on February 22 to actually approve final plans and inspect authorize advertisement for bids. We would like this plan submitted to MNDOT for their review. Steve Campbell from SEH is here if you questions. Mr. Marty asks if this has been presented to the Council work session. Mr. Jopke responded not to this Council, but the previous Council. Mr. Marty stated he has a number of questions about it. Mr. Marty stated he made some calls down to Tony Bennett's office, to try to get some information from him, and Tony Bennett, who is our Ramsey County commissioner, he and Paul (Kirkwald) is director of public works, they are both coming to our work session this next Monday and that could probably delay a lot of the questions. Mr. Marty said this wasn't presented to at least three of us on this Council, and Mr. Marty does have questions about this. Mr. Marty requested instead of taking Council time, this ti • could be done in the work session next Monday. Mr. Marty would like to move to postpone to the February 8 Council meeting, so we can meet with Tony Bennett and Paul (Kirkwald) next Monday night at the work session. Motion/Second: Marty/Thomason. Motion to postpone consideration of the realignment discussion until the next meeting, which is February 8, and also direct staff to present this at the Council work session February 1. Mayor Coughlin stated he failed to mention in his report that he had extended an invitation to our commissioner, Tony Bennett, to speak before our Council at a work session and in talking with his assistant said that February 1 work session would be a good time for Tony's schedule to be here. Mr. Quick asked if the county commissioner and someone who deals with county roads, are they going to have any information on U.S. Trunk Highway. Mr. Quick stated postponing this will just slow down the process of realigning the street. Mayor Coughlin stated it is his understanding that this section of Highway 10 is being turned back to the county level some time in late spring, early summer. Rick Jopke stated that the word staff has received is that the turn back could occur as soon as July of this year. Since it is a funding of State, we still have to approve plans. Mr. Stigney stated the ponding issue dealing with this road needs some additional discussion. Wendell Smith, representing Anthony properties of Dallas, Texas. Mr. Smith objects to postponing and tabling approving the preliminary plans. Mr. Smith states he was working on this project for over three years and have been working with Council and City staff during that period of time and in good faith we have followed through in working with the resolutions that the City has passed in regards to this. We have spent millions of dollars on this project. This project is now scheduled for completion April 15. We have moved ahead based on good faith working with the Council and City staff. You have before you a schedule that was provided by SEH, your architectural engineering consultant with the City in which construction is to begin on the intersection, of the "right in," and "right out," to the theater as of April 12, 1999. In order to get to that point in which the theater then could open no later than May 1, 1999, by tabling or postponing the giving of these plans to the State of Minnesota, you are jeopardizing the opening of that theater and the ability of that theater to do its business. Mr. Smith stated if this is tabled tonight and we find ourselves not being able to open on time based on that, then we have to look at our legal avenues we must have to take from the City standpoint individually so that we may progress based on what the City has stated. Gary Collis, 2390 Pinewood Circle. Mr. Collis stated: "This intersection looks good, but he proposes that this be postponed because of not addressing Edgewood Drive, up at County Road I. • It is a very dangerous intersection right now. We have rush hour traffic where you can't even cross the street, and we have the community center over here now. We are going to have a movie theater. There is going to be a lot of traffic from the north part of Mounds View coming down Edgewood, they are all going to be using County Road I and Edgewood Drive intersection. I propose afour-way stop at that intersection should be part of this project. Mr. Collis stated all of this traffic will come into a funnel at County Road I and Edgewood. We have children that can't even cross the street now at certain times of day. The community center cannot be used during certain times of day because of the traffic. It is only going to get worse with this nice street that is going to be put in. Mr. Collis stated this should be postponed to make sure that intersection is part of this project." Mayor Coughlin stated the discussion is certainly legitimate, but it needs to be a separate issue. It can be a related issue, it doesn't have to be put off indefinitely. We can certainly discuss that and there is fair merit to the comments.. Mayor Coughlin requests staff to make note of that so we can further discuss this issue. Motion/Second: Motion to postpone approval of Edgewood realignment, and TH signal plans and specifications. Motion/Second: Quick/Coughlin. Motion to have a five minute recess. • VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nayes - 0. RESUME MEETING Mayor Coughlin calls the meeting back to order. Mr. Quick requests Mr. Long what legal ramifications what the City could incur on the intersection. Mr. Long stated it is a call of where the developer has obviously raised the issue that if there is a delay whether it is one week or longer, if they suffer some economic damage, they would at least maintain their option to seek remedies from the City and have claims like that against cities. Some have been successful and some have not. In fact, the vast majority are not. The issue is really a question of whether or not the delay would be considered a reasonable delay, whether or not it would be a good faith basis for it, so it is really quite a factual determination. Mr. Long stated he cannot tell you that delaying it tonight would be absolutely risk-free, but I can also tell you that in the analysis of risk, at least with cases I am aware of, that there is some discretion going to be a granted to a new Council for another two-week delay to get the information. It is quite different from some of the cases in what are considered unreasonable delays which have been months at a time. So I don't want to tell you that there is absolutely no risk because the delay could cause litigation and, of course, defend the Council. We believe we could win that, but I think it is a fair question, and I don't want to tell you that not to absolutely delay it tonight • • • for liability reasons. If the Council wishes to delay it, for the purposes stated of having two weeks to study the issue, with the new Council to see the documents. I understand from talking to one of the Council members there were no documents available. If litigation did result from that, we certainly would defend it, and I think we would be successful. Rick Jopke stated: I see on the schedule here that the final approval of the plans will be February 22, 1999. By that time, we will have all the information locked down in black and white for the Council to review. Mr. Jopke stated that it is certainly our intent that we will have the information from the state. Mr. Quick stated we will have four weeks to research this. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road. Mr. McCarty stated this light is critical, not only to the operation of the theater, and keeping that traffic on Highway 10 as much as we can, but it is also very important to the community center. Mr. McCarty stated the gentleman who spoke earlier concerned about the traffic on Edgewood and County Road I is correct. Mr. McCarty states he travels that road as well. There are rush hour problems there. Mr. McCarty's biggest concern is some of the good faith things that have occurred over the last three years as Mr. Smith has already alluded, the developer at one time in an offer of good faith voluntarily withdrew his rights to access public infrastructure, that being H2 and Long Lake Road, hoping that would in some way further the project. The City agreed to that. The neighbors agreed to that. They • thought that was best that we can do at the time. As we all know, MNDOT turned all of that around with their requirements. Mr. McCarty stated if we don't go forward with the light, and I am questioning the reasoning for postponement, if there is any thought that there could be a change in the access to H2 or Long Lake Road, I would suggest that you very careful considering the constitutional rights of this property owner to access public infrastructure. Mr. McCarty states there is nothing we can do to petition the developer and ask for his cooperation. Mr. McCarty stated the timing of the light, if it is delayed any further, we will get passed the opening of the theater and we will realize our worst fears if that light is not in place, ready to regulate and encourage traffic to use 10 rather than H2. Mr. McCarty indicates it is hard to do this when there are three new Council members who haven't had the opportunity to go into the detail that the previous council had. Mr. McGarry stated you have to trust that the previous Council did their homework and they made the decision as they best could, in the best interest of the City. Mr. McCarty indicated he would like the Council to go forward and get this light in as quickly as you can, not only for the control of the traffic off that theater, but all of its considerable worth in getting our traffic north/south across highway 10 to our community center. Mayor Coughlin stated he appreciates Mr. McGarry comments. Mr. McCarty stated Council Thomason is in a difficult position here. VVe all know how hard she worked trying to make sure that her neighborhood was protected against some negative impacts and this will do exactly that if it is in Indian Pine and in coordination with the opening of the theater, she will end up realizing some of her worst fears and nightmares as well. There may be .~ • colleague considerations, too. Mr. Coughlin stated because of Mr. McCarty's former position, two extra minutes was given. Mr. Wendell stated what is being considered tonight is a preliminary approval of the plans and specifications in order that they may be sent to MNDOT. You are not signing off and finalizing plans. These are preliminary plans and specifications which can be changed before your February 22 .date. The purpose of approving the preliminary plans are simply to get these plans and specifications to MNDOT for their comments so that staff can give you their comments, for February 22. Steve Cambdeski stated tonight's meeting is just approval of preliminary plans and specifications for the MNDOT approval and permits and that is what is significant, with the MSA funding and with the necessary permits for access to Highway 10. MNDOT process is going to be fairly involved and we would like extra time. The reason is we expect back and forth paperwork between MNDOT and the Council. A few extra weeks were put in. Preliminary approval is needed, to get this off to MNDOT so they can start the process. This has to go across about 10 desks over there before we get it back and it can take quite a while. This does not preclude us coming back to the work session for February 8 meeting, assuming approval of the plans. The final approval comes a month from tonight, February 22, and that is when we will be able to make the final resolution authorizing the plans and specifications. . Mr. Marty asks when would the MSA and everything else that becomes official, on February 22? Mr. Camdeski replied that would be when the resolution would be presented. That is when we will start the legal process. ' Mr. Marty asked if questions can be asked in the meantime, if any, with Mr. Camdeski stating yes. Mr. Stigney questioned if we went ahead with these preliminary plans that during the work session or even the next Council meeting we could do some final minor tweaking. Mr. Camdeski indicated that is correct. Mr. Stigney has a .question of the ponding drainage issue, and asks if this is the minor tweaking. Mr. Camdeski reports at this point it is. Mr. Jopke indicates that this is not something MNDOT is going to get involved with. Primarily, they are going to look at the MSA, the alignment cross section of the road, and then for the permitting process they are going to look at the access points, turn lanes and things like that. The storm sewer is not something that they are going to be concerned with. • .~ Julie Olson stated that some of the questions that will be still out there as Councilman Stigney stated, "If this plan goes to MNDOT on approval and the realignment would need to be different than what was proposed, as far as changing the alignment, that was not going to possible at further work sessions or after the Council would have review of prior information." Ms. Olson asked if this was correct. Mr. Camdeski stated the alignment is not going to change. "The design needs to align up with the existing theater entrance, so that is something, that I feel safe to say, is not going to change." VOTE: Ayes - 1 (Thomason). Nays-4. The request fails. Motion/Second: Quick/Coughlin. Motion to approve Edgewood realignment and TH 10 signal plans and specifications. VOTE: Ayes - 4. Nays - 1 (Thomason). The motion carries. ITEM 9G Consider approving the catering and food service agreement with Elegant Thymes Catering. Mr. Long offered additional provisions to be included in light of some of the other agreements that we are going to be entering into. If there are additional concerns, we can certainly address • them between next Monday, and on the 8th, and we won't really lose any time. There are at least two provisions that did not get in this draft. Mr. Marty stated he could contact Bruce, or Scott, in the meantime, and get these answers. Mr. Quick requested research on the possibility of installing a stop sign at the intersection of Edgewood and County Road I. Motion/Second: Quick/Coughlin. Consider approving the catering and food service agreement with Elegant Thymes Catering. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays-0. Motion carries. CALL MEETING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Monday January 25, 1999. 1 • ROLL CALL Mr. Whiting calls roll: president Coughlin, commissioners Stigney, Thomason, Marty, and Quick. Mayor Coughlin stated the only item before the authority is consideration of resolution No. 99EDA, 102, appointing an economic development commission members. These are three members previously on the commission, and as the authority of President would present before you these three names to be considered for terms. There are two additional seats that have yet to be filled and hopefully I will have those names later. Mr. Coughlin motions to approve these three previous members on the commission to be considered as commission members for EDA. Motion/Second: Thomason/Stigney. Motion to approve members for EDA. VOTE: Ayes - 5. Nays - 0. REPORTS No reports. Mr. Coughlin motions to adjourns meeting. • The meeting is adjourned •