Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1992/07/13• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEVt~ CITY COUNCIL JULY 13, 1992 7:00 P.M. AGENDA The City Council is provided background information for agenda items sn advance by staff and appointed commissions, committees and boards. Decisions are based on this information, as well as City. policy and practices, input from constituents and a Councilmember's personal judgement. If you have comments, questions or information regarding an item on the agenda, please step forward to be recognized by the Ptayor during the "Residents Requests and Comments From the Floor" item on the agenda. Please state your name and address for the record. A1I comments are appreciated. A copy of all printed materials relating to the agenda item is available for public inspection at the Recording Secretary's Table. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL - Linke Rickaby Blanchard Quick Wuori 4. APPROZIAL OF MINUTES: June 8, 1992 Regular Meeting COUNCIL ACTION: A T D AGENDA PAGE TWO JULY 13, 1992 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES (CONTINUED) June 22, 1992 ' Regular Meeting COUNCIL ACTION: A T D 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: a. Adoption and Presentation of Resolution No. 4252 Commending the Irondale High School Baseball Team b. Adoption and Presentation of Resolution No. 4255 Commending the Irondale Track Team 6. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Citizens' comments are encouraged to allow individual citizens to address • the Council, as a whole, on a matter of interest or concern to the citizens. The preservation of the Citizens' Comments item on the agenda is important sn order to encourage and maintain this information flow. To preserve and protect this valuable communications link, a speaker is Ziatited to three (3) minutes. ------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES -------------------------------------------------------------- 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS• 7:05 P.M. To consider development request known as Greenfield Estates, Harstad Companies, Planning Case No. 333-91 Consideration of Resolution No. 4253 Development Request Known As Greenfield Estates, Harstad Companies COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments• • AGENDA PAGE THREE JULY 13, 1992 8. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Set Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, July 27, 1992 to Consider Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Residential Dog Kennel at 8261 Red Oak Drive, Planning Case 338-91, Staff Report No. 92- 315C 2. Set Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday, July 27, 1992 to Consider Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Residential Dog Kennel at 5200 Jeffrey Drive, Planning Case 339-91, Staff Report No. 92- 316C 3. Set Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, July 27, 1992 to Consider a Request for Conditional Use Permit for Allow an Oversized Accessory Structure at 7074 Knollwood Drive, Planning Case 347-92, Staff Report No. 92-317C 4. Adopt Resolution No. 4249 Approving Wage Adjustment for Marvin Johnson, Athletic Supervisor, Staff Report No. 92-318C 5. Adopt Resolution No. 4250 Approving Wage Adjustment for Tim Cruikshank, Management Assistant, Staff Report No. 92-3190 6. Set Public Hearing for the First Reading of the 1992 Long Term Financial-Plan for 7:20, July 27, 1992, Staff Report No. 92-320C 7. Adopt Resolution No. 4251 Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds 8. Licenses for Approval General Advance Construction Company - Renewal Heartland Industries - Renewal Heating and Air Conditionincr American Burner Service, Inc. - Renewal Custom Mechanical - Renewal Louis Degido, Inc. - Renewal The Snelling Company - Renewal . St. Marie Sheet Metal - Renewal Master Mobile Home Service - Renewal AGENDA • PAGE FOUR JULY 13, 1992 Rosetown Mechanical - Renewal Sian Attracta Sign, Inc. - Renewal Lawrence Sign, Inc. - Renewal Asphalt Blacktop Driveway Company - Renewal Northern Asphalt Construction - Renewal Fence Dakota Fence of MN, Inc. - Renewal Garbage Wildwood Sanitation - Renewal Masonrv Universal Chimney of MN, Inc. - New COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments• 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1. Discussion of Request By Mounds View Antiques to Allow Off-Site Signage, Staff Report No. 92-321C COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments• • AGENDA PAGE FIVE JULY 13,.1992 2. Discussion of Composition of Organized Collection Study Committee, Staff Report No. 92-322C COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments• • 3. Consideration of Resolution No. 4254 .Establishing a Golf Course Task Force, Staff Report No. 323C COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 4. Consideration of Staff Report No. 92-324C Regarding Conducting a Secondary Community Survey Comments• 10. REPORTS• 1. Report of Councilmembers: Rickaby, Blanchard, Quick, Wuori 2. Report of Mayor Linke 3. Report of Administrator 4 . Report of Staf f 5. Report of Attorney AGENDA PAGE SIX JULY 13, 1992 11. ADJOURNMENT• NEST COIINCIL WORK SESSION: AIIGIIST 3, 1992 NEST COIINCIL MEETING: JIILY 27, 1992 • • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 13, 1992 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 CALL TO ORDER The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor Linke at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 13, 1992. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ~he Pledge of Allegiance was said. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Blanchard, Wuori, Quick, Rickaby and Mayor Linke. MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Samantha Orduno,"City Administrator, Ric Minetor, Public Works Director/City Engineer, Carla Asleson, Recycling Coordinator, Paul Harrington, City Planner, Tim Cruikshank, Management Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION/SECOND: Rickaby/Blanchard to remove June 8, 1992 minutes from the table. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: Wuori/Quick to approve June 8, 1992 minutes as presented. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ~ounds View City Council Regular Meeting Page Two July 13, 1992 MOTION/SECOND' as presented.' VOTE' Quick/Blanchard to approved June 22, 1992 minutes 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Wuori to adopt Resolution No. 4252 Commending the Irondale High School Baseball Team Mayor Linke read Resolution No. 4252 Commending the Irondale High School Baseball Team. There were no representatives from the team at the meeting accept the resolution, therefore, Mayor Linke asked that the City Administrator deliver it to the team. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Rickaby to adopt Resolution No. 4255 Commending the Irondale High School Track Team VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ~ayor Linke read Resolution No. 4255 Commending the Irondale High School Track Team. There were no representatives from the team present at the meeting to accept the resolution, therefore, Mayor Linke asked that the City Administrator deliver it to the team. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: Bill Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, asked if the City could post on the bulletin board a notation .of a book, Who Will Tell The People?, by William Gryder on the bulletin board. Mayor Linke advised Mr. Werner that the City cannot post notice because this item is sold for profit. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mayor Linke called the public hearing to order at 7:08 p.m. to consider a development request known as Greenfield Estates, Harstad Companies. Paul Harrington, City Planner, review this development request. Harrington from McCombs, Frank, Roos Associates, to go through the development request from Barr Engineering. Mr. Roos went hat it entailed. ad Staf f introdu~ Inc. on .and Mr. through Report No. 92-314C regarding red Jeff Roos, a representative behalf of Harstad Companies, Sabee, the City's consultant, the development request and Mounds View City Council Page Three regular Meeting July 13, 1992 Following Mr. Roos' presentation, Peter Sabee, Barr Engineering, the City's consultant on this development, reviewed the application from Harstad and how it complies with the conditions and standards brought forth in the Mounds View Municipal Code. Sabee stated that there are twenty-one conditions. that the applicant has to meet and, at this point, they have met eighteen of those conditions. Harstad still has to forward to Sabee additional information on the wildlife values and water quality enhancement values with regards to this development. The other item is that Harstad has to obtain a variance from the City allowing for the location of single family homes within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone at setbacks ranging from 20 - 80 feet. After Mr. Sabee's report, Mayor Linke asked for questions from the Gity Council regarding the development. Councilmember Rickaby asked if it would be possible to develop this area without a variance for wetland setbacks. Rickaby asked if this development could be accomplished by moving the boundaries back. Jeff Roos stated that all large lots abut the wetland and have a 100 foot setback line. Councilmember Rickaby asked if there could be a change in the lot lines or • ize of the lots so no building would take place in the wetland area. Councilmember Rickaby also asked how this development agreement got this far through the process without complete documentation regarding the wildlife enhancement value and water quality enhancement information. Mayor Linke asked Peter Sabee what Harstad had given him to this point. Peter Sabee stated that Barr Engineering had received a fair amount of documentation on each item. Sabee stated that he has questions with computations that were used to arrive at the numbers they have and he has asked for clarification of these computations. This item could be handled by Harstad forwarding more detailed information to Barr. Mayor Linke stated that Harstad had been turned down in the past for this development because it did not meet many portions of the City's ordinances. Mayor Linke asked if Harstad has now met the items that they had been turned down in the past. Mayor Linke stated that he had voted against the development proposal in the past and that the reasons for his negative vote would be very defensible in a court of law. Sabee,. Barr Engineering, stated that in general they have complied with the ordinances. All key issues were made to comply with the City's Wetland Ordinance, other than the request for variance. Councilmember Rickaby asked what the differences were in that the old evelopment did not meet what the new proposal meets. Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Four July 13, 1992 Peter Sabee stated that the key issues had to do with location of wetland boundary, criteria for setbacks, lot width and lot area. Mr. Sabee explained the change in wetland boundary and how it was derived. Mr. Sabee also stated that the lot size and area are in compliance. Lot area came in to compliance by widening lots and bringing the lot lines further into the wetland. Councilmember Rickaby asked what had changed in the wetland boundary. Mr. Sabee stated that basically the change was the method used to delineate the wetland boundary. Mr. Sabee explained that another concern was the method used for calculating water quality enhancement. Many communities use the Walker method. This method works by providing storm water storage to settle sediment particles from storm water runoff. The more particles settled greater value of water quality. Wildlife enhancement initial concerns are the shape and topography of the ponds. Irregular sides and irregular bottom contours of ponds are better. Councilmember Rickaby asked if on this proposal there were fewer lots, but greater proposed development area. Mr. Sabee responded that there was probably more square footage in lots. Councilmember Rickaby asked about a ditch in the proposal. Mr. Roos described the location of the ditch, where it ran and the location of the ponds. Councilmember Rickaby asked what the effects on the flood plain would be when one is preventing the lowering of the ground water level. Mr. Roos stated that there would be no effect on water flow characteristics. Councilmember Wuori asked if this development was changing the 100' setback on the south and east sides. Are the setbacks the same as before or do they extend further. Mr. Roos stated that the south side doesn't change. on the east there will be a change in the wetland zone at the south one third. There will be less on the west side. Homes on the east side encroach further on the wetland zone than before . Paul Harrington, City Planner stated that houses that are currently in place will remain as they are. Councilmember Wuori also stated that it was her understanding that the persons purchasing this property are purchasing a portion of wetland that cannot be used and could not be maintained as a garden or part of their ~ard. Mounds View City Council Page Five ~gular Meeting July 13, 1992 Mr. Roos stated that the property owners will still have significant rear yards. Paul Harrington, City Planner, explained that in the wetland buffer zone gardens can be maintained, sod and .mowing can be accomplished, but not in the wetland itself. Councilmember Wuori stated that homes in that area during high water times had flooding in their basements from ground water. Wuori asked if this development would increase the groundwater level. Mr. Roos indicated that this development would not increase the groundwater. Councilmember Rickaby inquired of staff if the City has, since the wetland ordinance was adopted, allowed people to develop wetlands. Councilmember Rickaby stated that the City has given variances for what's in the wetland 100' buffer but what about in the wetland. Paul Harrington, City Planner, stated that two commercial properties developed wetlands. They were Sysco and Tyson Trucking. Harrington further stated that research could be done to see if any others had been granted variances to do work in the wetland. Councilmember Rickaby stated that these are both commercial lots, but has he City done this for persons buying lots with wetlands on them. Rickaby stated concern that people with wetlands on their lots will make requests to develop these wetlands and how the City will monitor this. Councilmember Rickaby further stated that the City has no prohibition on what the people who buy properties with wetlands on them do to them. Paul Harrington, City Planner, stated that the City can control what the people do to the wetlands. The wetland buffer zone allows for yard maintenance and landscaping. Harrington further stated that the City can't always catch the persons doing the work, but if reported the City can follow up on it. Councilmember Wuori stated that it could be years before the City could catch them doing work on the wetland. Sherry Nelson, 8303 Red Oak Drive, had concerns with fertilizer going into the ponds and asked what effect this would have on wildlife and other growths. Mayor Linke stated that the City does not regulate the use of these items, but had looked at this problem in the past. 'ter Sabee, Barr Engineering, stated that nutrients put on lawns does enter wetlands through the water drainage system. Sabee stated that he ~'t know what can be done, perhaps, the City could develop some type of once on a City wide basis. Other than that he doesn't know what can be Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Six July 13, 1992 done other than people can take the responsibility to use good practices. Jeff Roos, Harstad, stated that the computations on the project had to encompass the entire drain basin which is approximately 150 acres even though the lots are 5 1/2 or 6 acres in total. All flood storage and enhancement calculations based on what could be done for the entire 150 acres. The water quality enhancement study was done for the entire basin. William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated according to the presentation made by Mr. Roos, the wildlife value will decrease by 1/10 of 1 percent which is 8,657 vs. 8,651. Werner masked if this computation can be made then why can't the question of what percent of these lots will be in the wetland itself be answered and can gardens be put in the setback area and will half of the houses be in the setback area. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated he would spare the Council the litany now that the Council is experiencing the effects of changing the wetland ordinance from preservation to enhancement. Mr. McCarty further asked why the City, if it can control acts in wetland areas and maintain its integrity, would it take park dedication property in lieu of the 10~ park dedication proposal. Mayor Linke responded that the City Council would not accept the park medication proposal being offered by Harstad. Muriel Brainard, 7900 Greenwood Drive, asked why the houses need to be built in the wetland area. Why do we encroach on wetlands? Mayor Linke stated that Mr. Harstad had owned this property for many years. Linke further stated that he did not understand why Mr. Harstad did not build on this property before the wetland ordinance came into effect. Harstad then could have filled and put lots of houses in there. Fortunately, it did not happen. Muriel Brainard concurred with Mayor Linke and asked the City to stick to the ordinance. Roger Stigney, 8400 Eastwood Road, opposed alterations or variances to the ordinance although he does not live close to this particular project. Stigney asked why this development couldn't be modified so it didn't encroach on the wetland. Patricia Eggers 7944 Groveland Avenue, stated her opposition to building on any part of wetlands. Eggers stated she wonders if Harstad should be liable for the sewer system damage if the City has floods. Eggers further stated that Harstad should guarantee no floods for fifty years and pay all damages in the event floods occur. ~eff Roos, Harstad, stated that Harstad is in compliance with the storm ater drainage plan. Roos stated that he didn't know anyone alive that Mounds View City Council Page Seven ~egular Meeting July 13, 1992 would make guarantees on behalf of mother nature. This development will not impact waterflow characteristics of this site one bit. This development provides more storage area. The watershed volume is increased, not decreased. Kay Weseman, 7807 Bona Road, stated she was very disappointed with the City as only four years ago the City had gone through the same action and that this proposal doesn't look significantly different, in her opinion, than the one rejected by the City Council in 1988, other than Harstad is asking for 13 lots instead of 17 or 18. Ms. Weseman stated that, in her opinion, this developer has not met the intent of the ordinance at all. Ms. Weseman stated her frustration that when persons went to the Planning Commission with concerns and nothing was done to respond to these concerns with this development, they were treated with tokenisms and told that it was not their job to change the proposal. Ms. Weseman stated that this from the leader of the Planning Commission on down is reprehensible. Ms. Weseman found out that Peter Sabee was working with the developer in order that he could comply with the City's wetland ordinance. Kay Weseman asked how many times the public has to sign petitions and answer surveys that are paid for by the taxpayers money questions that we do not want to see wetlands encroached upon. Wetland boundaries should not be changed. Do boundaries change over time? Are the boundaries the same as ~e stand here now. Ms. Weseman asked if the boundaries had been resurveyed since 1987 to see if they are still in tact. Sabee, Barr Engineering, responded that the boundaries established in 1987 have not been resurveyed. Sabee further stated that if there is a significant change in watershed, such that on an average basis a lot more water was moving through this wetland a lot more often, a boundary could change. If some type of alteration were done within a wetland where a ditch outlet was constructed that could have an impact on the boundaries. Also, if the elevation were raised or lowered. The method of measuring the wetland by the Corps of Engineers is based on things or features in the field that do not change rapidly such as communities of vegetation, soil markings indicating saturation, groundwater levels or water on top. Kay Weseman inquired about ditch cleaning and drought having a significant impact on the boundaries of the wetland if they had occurred previous to a site inspection. Sabee stated that drought would not change features that would be looked for in a vegetative community or in the soils. There would be a predominance of species but it would not change as rapidly. Perhaps it would not have a good season, but would still be there. Kay Weseman asked if it would change during a 10 year dry cycle in weather patterns. Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Eight July 13, 1992 Sabee stated that a 10 year dry cycle may have an effect. Sabee stated that he couldn't tell what the weather was like in 1987. The wetlands were drier in drought years. One could walk in some wetlands where one wouldn't get their feet wet and since that time those wetlands may have come back. Some are wetter now. According to the lines the Corps of Engineers uses, this wetland has not changed. Communities of vegetation are very slow to respond. Markings on the soil are there forever until someone disturbs them. These types of features are not quick to disappear. If conditions have been changed it makes delineation difficult. Kay Weseman asked if a 10 year major ditch cleaning and a 10 year drought cycle of weather patterns would have an effect. Sabee stated that if ditch cleaning were done one year previous, in his opinion, it would have not effect. Mayor Linke stated that the boundaries in the past were decided by aerial photography and not by walking the site. Kay Weseman stated that if these boundaries are being cast in cement, she wants to know if the consultant feels at ease casting them in cement. ~ayor Linke responded that Peter Sabee had answered that question. Duane McCarty stated that the Rice Creek Soil and Water Conservation District had walked that site and used USGA MAPS. Councilmember Rickaby stated that the size of the wetland has changed since 1987. Molly Shodeen, field inspector, had written a letter stating that in 1979 - 1980 she had conducted the Ramsey County Wetland Inventory which involved field inspection and typing of all potential wetland areas meeting certain criteria. When Ms. Shodeen field checked the wetland in 1980 she found that the vegetation type was accurate and the wetland was Type 2. In August, 1987, Ms. Shodeen stated that the wetland had changed character. There had been a wetter period and there is now more development in the area. Shodeen further stated that when there is more impervious surface from roofs, driveways and streets, storm sewers direct more runoff into wetland areas. Shodeen also states that in her opinion the increased development has added significantly more water to this basin to cause the vegetation to become, over time, predominantly cattail. Cattails require a wetter moisture regime than grasses and shrubs. Instead of being seasonally flooded as is characteristic of a Type 2, Shodeen stated in her letter, it now appears to be at least waterlogged throughout the growing season in order to support the cattail growth. Shodeen stated if she were to type the wetland at the time the letter was written she would have called it a good Type 3. r~ LJ Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Nine July 13, 1992 Mayor Linke stated the Shodeen had stated the water had increased. Sabee, stated that the Corps of Engineers measures the wetland as larger than the DNR stated because of its method of delineation. Kay Weseman, asked with regard to wildlife, what percentage of each type was found within the wetland boundaries. Mr. Roos stated the following square footages of each type of wildlife that was found. 18,270 sq. ft. Type II - marshland 30,000 sq. ft. Type V - open water 80,000 sq. ft. Type VI - shrub swamp (willows, poplar sprouts) 250,000 sq. ft. Type III - Kay Weseman stated that she was under the premise that this development would create more Type III wetland. Roos stated that there would be an increase in Type 5 open fresh water. The Type 3 would decrease by 10~. No decrease in Type 2. There would be a 30~ decrease in Type 6. ~oos stated that Harstad had not accounted for wildlife habitat in the etland buffer zone. The City~s ordinance did read that there will be no work done during the breeding season. This will cause the wildlife habitat to re-establish very quickly. Kay Weseman asked what it would cost to maintain the ponds and who would maintain them. Ric Minetor stated the costs would be taken from the general fund. The clean out of the ponds would have to be accomplished every 5 to 7 years at a annual cost of about $500. Kay Weseman asked exactly what the purpose is, as indicated in the wetland ordinance, of the wetland buffer zone. Ric Minetor stated that the wetland buffer zone is there so the City has an area adjacent to the wetland that gives the City more right to review as to what happens in that area. Rickaby stated that, in her opinion, the primary reason for the buffer zone was to not impact the wildlife habitat and that a house could not be built there because there is too much activity going on and it impacts wildlife habitat. Kay Weseman stated that the City and residents will be facing this question ime and time again so why not have the foresight to create a fund to ~urchase property if these areas are to serve as storm water drainage. Leave Mounds View City Council Cegular Meeting Page Ten July 13, 1992 the wetland for multi functional purposes. Everyone benefits from them. Mayor Linke gave an example of a case in Eagan where the City Council denied a developer full use of his land and the developer sued the City. The Court decided what the developer's land was worth, approximately twice the amount. Kay Weseman stated that the City finds funds for good uses such as the water tower and in her opinion wetlands meet that criteria. Weseman stated that she is sympathetic to the developer as he deserves to be compensated for the land he pays taxes on. Weseman stated that the City does studies and surveys on everything else with the taxpayers money. Mayor Linke stated that water towers and wetlands is like trying to compare apples and oranges. He asked Ms. Weseman which wetland should the City buy. Kay Weseman asked if the City of Egan had a wetland ordinance. Weseman stated that the City has rights and did Mayor Linke believe that the federal government would shoot us down for upholding our rights. Duane McCarty asked how this project would be affected by House File 1, the Wetland Conservation Act. Sabee stated that he couldn't give a definite answer. Most projects as of ~he passage of that law need to address or meet conditions of the law. here is a grandfather provision within the law. Mr. Sabee stated that as he understands the law, it is for projects that have superstructures in place or that have been improved. Mr. McCarty gave Mr. Sabee a copy of House File 1 and asked him to read it carefully before any decisions were made. Ric Minetor stated that Rice Creek Watershed would be the responsible unit of government according to the law. Should the development be approved, then it needs Rice Creek Watershed permits. McCarty stated that Rice Creek Watershed District should do their process before the City finishes theirs. Mr. Roos stated that it is a tennis game. Rice Creek Watershed is aware of the project but will do nothing until it is approved by the City. Sandy Krogh, 7827 Bona Road, asked if the wetland map had been amended. Mayor Linke stated that it was part of the resolution for the development. Sandy Krogh asked if there was a process to follow in amending the wetland map. I-'1 U Mounds View City Council Page Eleven ~egular Meeting July 13, 1992 Paul Harrington stated that if one thing is denied, certain properties would go through. Sandy Krogh, four or five houses are in the wetland. Shouldn't the map amendment be considered first. Paul Harrington, stated this is dealt with as one property. Mayor Linke stated that the resolution has several "whereas "'. One requires a 4/5 vote. Sandy Krogh, stated Harstad purchased a as this speculating would be worth mone~ Harstad stated that 3, and now 13? Ms. that, in her opinion, Harstad is under no hardship. swamp as a swamp. Harstad had bought several areas such that when all the good land was built on these swamps Y. Bona Road was part of the original land purchased. three lots were land locked, and he wanted 17 houses for Krogh wanted to know why he is so greedy. Mr. Roos commented that Harstad made every attempt to comply with the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mr. Roos stated that they have not declared a hardship. Mr. Roos further states that there were 21 condition that were stipulated in the ordinance that had to be met. Mounds View has a very restrictive ~etland ordinance. Mr. Roos stated that even with the variance they are requesting, improvements will not negatively impact the wetlands. Councilmember Rickaby commented that she recalled in 86 or 87 wrote a letter in the Mounds View court case that we would have to a lawsuit. Rickaby stated that sh and this case would not have made development and Harstad has sued present .lawsuit that has been dis newsletter that there was a allow Harstad to develop or Mayor Linke new supreme we would suffer e studied this particular case in school the City allow Harstad to do the us in the past and hasn't won. There is a missed for the present time. Councilmember Quick stated that the case that was referred to in Eagan had to do with a rare species of plant. This plant was in danger so the City would not let the land be developed. The City of Eagan had to pay for the loss of the development. Our ordinance states that the City has to be reasonable. Mayor Linke stated that he does not remember the newsletter article and asked Councilmember Rickaby to bring it in. Mayor Linke also stated that our experts stated that the proposal meets the City's ordinance and Mayor Linke stated he must weight the benefits and effects for the entire community. Mayor Linke stated that he voted against the proposed development for legal reasons and they wer defensible in a court of law. The City cannot be arbitrary or capricious in regards to these matters. Supposition will not hold up in a court of law. i Mounds View City Council Page Twelve ~egular Meeting July 13, 1992 Kay Weseman stated that the people of the City of Mounds View are willing to pay to have the wetlands preserved. Councilmember Rickaby will bring in a copy of the newsletter. Councilmember Quick stated that the people want a lot of things but the bottom line is that the people in Mounds View do not want their property taxes raised. Councilmember Rickaby stated that she has a copy of the 1988 and 1990 survey and there was a question in the 1988 survey that asked, "Do you favor the City buying wetlands to preserve them." Over 50$ of those surveyed answered yes. Muriel Brainard, How many homes could be built without making special considerations? Roos, without the variance there could only be two to three homes. Roos stated that he wanted to make a point that the City is not giving up the wetland. Roos explained that the wetlands were exchanged to create a larger area of wetland. Councilmember Rickaby asked why then there wasn't a development plan to ~evelop a wetland. Roger Stigney, 8400 Eastwood Road, asked what the City Attorney's opinion is in regard to legal concerns with this development. Mayor Linke stated that if Harstad met all of the criteria and we still said no to the development, we would go to court and loose. To not approve this development, the City has to make sure that it has legal grounds that are defensible in a Court of Law. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, stated that the Council has to act reasonably with regard to this matter. Thomson stated that the ordinance should be looked at to see if the did follow the criteria stated in the ordinance. Even if the criteria is followed, but the City deprives the owner of full use of his property a court case could take place. If in compliance the City Council has to make a decision. Councilmember. Rickaby stated that not only is the City guided by ordinance but also by past decisions in this area. She asked if the City sets a precedence when it makes a decision. Jim Thomson responded yes in some cases. Does it mean that the City has to do the same thing for all situations. Thomson stated it is very difficult to have two cases exactly the same, but if they were it would be very difficlut to do one thing with one and another thing with another. Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Thirteen July 13, 1992 Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 9:32 p.m. Councilmember Quick asked that the Council take a five minute break. Mayor Linke polled the Council and it was okay with all. Mayor Linke reconvened the Council meeting at 9:46 p.m. Mayor Linke introduced Resolution No. Approving or Denying the Development Proposal known as Greenfield Estates Councilmember Rickaby asked if the Council did not approve the whole package would it deny the entire development. Rickaby stated that this is the understanding she was given from Mr. Roos' presentation. Roos stated that if certain items were not approved it could deny the entire development. Jim Thomson made a suggestion to ask for a general motion approving/denying the resolution and then go through and amend it. MOTION~SECOND: Rickaby/Wuori to Deny the Development Proposal Known As Greenfield Estates • Councilmember Rickaby stated that if Harstad develops this property and keeps the wetland and wanted to develop property in the wetland and the City denied it, Harstad could sue us. Council went through each item on the resolution. The results were as follows: Request for a Major Subdivision and found that it does conform with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code. . the Army Corps of Engineers and the City's Engineering Consultant have reviewed the existing wetland boundary and found that a discrepancy does exist in the boundaries shown on the City's official Wetland Zoning Map. the City Council approves the Wetland Zoning District Amendment to the existing boundaries of Wetland No. 1-19. the Developer must meet the conditions outlined in Chapter 48.06, Subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 in order to obtain a wetland alteration permit the City's Engineering Consultant has reviewed the development proposed with regard to Chapter 48.06, Subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 and found that the request will meet or exceed the requirements contingent upon receipt of supporting information and approval of . the same. Mounds View City Council Page Fourteen ~egular Meeting July 13, 1992 the City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit based on the City Consultant Engineer's findings that the request does meet or exceed the applicable sections of the Municipal Code. the Developer has requested a variance from the 100 foot wetland setback requirement. the City Council has reviewed this request and found that there are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and results from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of the property, since enactment of this Code, have not had control. Councilmembers were polled as to their opinion. Councilmember Rickaby - no, Councilmember Blanchard - yes, Councilmember Quick - yes, Councilmember Wuori - yes and Mayor Linke - yes. the City Council has found that the request is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and does not convey certain privileges upon the applicant that are not enjoyed by other property owners within the City. • the City Council approves the variance request within the 100 foot wetland setback requirement. the Developer has requested a Conditional Use Permit for working in a flood plain. the City's Engineering Consultant, Peter Sabee, has reviewed the Development Proposal and found that there is not adverse affect upon the flood plain. the City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit for filling in a flood plain. the Developer has requested vacation of City-owned right-of-way. the City Council approves the requested vacation of right-of-way. the Developer has requested that property be accepted in lieu of the Park Dedication Fee. the City Council does not accept land in lieu of Park Dedication Fee. the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and recommended approval in Resolution No. 339-92. Mounds View City Council Page Fifteen ~egular Meeting July 13, 1992 it is the practice of the City Council to recommend approval or denial of a development in total. the City Council of the City of Mounds View denies the development proposal known as Greenfield Estates as the request does not meet or exceed all requirements for development as defined within the Mounds View Municipal Code. Councilmember Wuori after going through the entire document retracted her second. to the motion to deny the development proposal. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Quick to Approve the Development Proposal Known As Greenfield Estates Council went through each item on the resolution. Amendments to the resolution were made as follows: Request for a Major Subdivision and found that it does conform with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code. the Army Corps of Engineers and the City's Engineering Consultant have reviewed the existing wetland boundary and found that a discrepancy does exist in the boundaries shown on the City's official Wetland Zoning Map. the City Council approves the Wetland Zoning District Amendment. to the existing boundaries of Wetland No. 1-19. the Developer must meet the conditions outlined in Chapter 48.06, Subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 in order to obtain a wetland alteration permit the City's Engineering Consultant has reviewed the development proposed with regard to Chapter 48.06, Subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 and found that the request will meet or exceed the requirements contingent upon receipt of supporting information and approval of the same. the City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit based on the City Consultant Engineer's findings that the request does meet or exceed the applicable sections of the Municipal Code. the Developer has requested a variance from the 100 foot wetland setback requirement. the City Council has reviewed this request and found that there • are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property which do not apply generally to other properties in Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Sixteen July 13, 1992 the same zone or vicinity and results from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of the property, since enactment of this Code, have not had control. Councilmembers were polled as to their opinion. Councilmember Rickaby - no, Councilmember Blanchard - yes, Councilmember Quick - yes, Councilmember Wuori - yes and Mayor Linke - yes. the City Council has found that the request is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and does not convey certain privileges upon the applicant that are not enjoyed by other property owners within the City. the City Council approves the variance request within the 100 foot wetland setback requirement. the Developer has requested a Conditional Use Permit for working in a flood plain. the City's Engineering Consultant, Peter Sabee, has reviewed the Development Proposal and found that there is not adverse affect upon the flood plain. the City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit for filling in a flood plain. the Developer has requested vacation of City-owned right-of-way. the City Council approves the requested vacation of right-of-way. the Developer has requested that property be accepted in lieu of the Park Dedication Fee. the City Council does not accept land in lieu of Park Dedication Fee. the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and recommended approval in Resolution No. 339-92. it is the practice of the City Council to recommend approval or denial of a development in total. the City Council of the City of Mounds View approves the development proposal known as Greenfield Estates as the request does meet or exceed all requirements for development as defined within the Mounds View Municipal Code. ouncilmember Rickaby stated that this is the outcome of our having changed ~he wetland ordinance, having a storm water management plan as our way of Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Seventeen July 13, 1992 enhancing wetlands. Nothing significant has changed in this development proposal. Total surface area is greater than in 1987. Mayor Linke stated that the wetland ordinance was changed when Mr. McCarty was Mayor. This was done because of a property known as the Miller Property and was done on the advice of an attorney. Councilmember Quick stated that the City has as much wetland if not more than before the development proposal. Mayor Linke actual amount of wetland being disturbed is less. ROLL CALL VOTE• Councilmember Wuori - aye Councilmember Quick -.aye Councilmember Blanchard - aye Councilmember Rickaby - no Councilmember Linke - yes Motion Carried The resolution passed on a 4/5 vote. The Major Subdivision portion of the resolution requires a second reading for final approval. That will take place at the July 27th meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Linke introduced the Consent Agenda. Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, read the Consent Agenda. MOTION~SECOND: Wuori/Blanchard to adopt the Consent Agenda as presented. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1. Paul Harrington reviewed Staff Report No. 92-321C regarding a Request by Mounds View Antiques to Allow Off-Site Signage. Because of the length of forerunning public hearing, the representatives from Mounds View Antiques asked that this item be tabled to the July 27, 1992 meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Wuori/Blanchard to table the request by Mounds View Antiques to Allow Off-Site Signage to the July 27, 1992 Council Meeting. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Eighteen July 13, 1992 2. Carla Asleson, Recycling Coordinator, reviewed Staff Report No. 92-322C regarding the Composition of Organized Collection Study Committee and asked that the Environmental Quality Task Force as a whole be appointed to this Committee. Councilmember Rickaby stated that this Committee should involve the interested garbage haulers and interested citizens. • 3. Asleson commented that the Committee would not exclude attendance by interested haulers or citizens. Committee would vote on what means of collection would be for .the betterment of the community. Mayor Linke commented that the Environmental Quality Task Force is composed of interested citizens. These meetings would be open meetings and this Committee would have to get the haulers involved to get their insights. It would not be in the best interest of the City to appoint the haulers to this Committee. Asleson stated that the public hearing is the only thing that has been done with regard to this matter. MOTION/SECOND: Blanchard/Quick to appoint the Environmental Quality Task Force as a whole to come up with some way of organized collection for the betterment of all residents. Blanchard stated that the haulers should be invited to give input and a report given to Council by the Environmental Quality Task Force. Councilmember Blanchard stated that in her past experiences when there are too many people on these commissions, nothing gets done. Councilmember Wuori stated that Resolution No. 4239, a Resolution of Intent of the City of Mounds View to Organize the Collection of Solid Waste and Recyclable Items, Item 3., invites the haulers to participate. Councilmember Rickaby also suggested that business people should be involved and expressed the need for the City to let them know what the City is considering. A one hauler system involves commercial also. VOTE: 4 ayes 1 nays Motion Carried Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, reviewed Staff Report No. 92-232C regarding the Appointment of a Golf Course Task Force. Orduno stated that the Council has determined that the best avenue by which to pursue the golf course development with public participation would be through a Golf Course Task Force. The Task Force would consist of one member of the Planning Commission, one member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, two members of the Mounds View Business Association, one resident at large and two City Councilmembers. Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Nineteen July 13, 1992 MOTION[SECOND: Linke/Quick to adopt Resolution No. 4254 Establishing a Golf Course Task Force VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Wuori moved to appoint Councilmembers Gary Quick and Phyllis Blanchard to the Golf Course Task Force VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mayor Linke stated that the Planning Commission will appoint their representative, the Parks and Recreation Commission will appoint their representative and the Business Associates will appoint their representative. 4. Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, reviewed Staff Report no. 92- 324C, regarding Conducting a Secondary Community Survey. Orduno stated that for several years there have been discussions among Council and staff regarding the need to upgrade and expand the Mounds View Police Department facility. Orduno stated that the purpose of a new facility would be to provide additional operational and technical areas to address the continually changing and complex • operational activities and legal requirements facing a Metropolitan area police force. Orduno further stated that discussions have also transpired in regards to the advisability of conducting a small sample random survey to determine resident views on the construction of a new police facility and related City Hall improvements. Orduno stated that as per Council direction, staff had contacted Decision Resources, Ltd. to determine the costs of a 250 sample resident survey. The cost is approximately $3,000 for a 15 question survey and related analysis. Mayor Linke stated that perhaps a few other questions could be asked on this survey along with the general demographic questions. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Wuori to authorize Decision Resources Ltd. to conduct a 250 random sample 15 question survey at a Cost Not to Exceed $3,000 and to be Funded Out of Account 100-4120-303 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Councilmember Quick commented that $3,000 is cheaper than conducting a referendum. Mayor Linke concurred that the up front cost for a referendum would exceed $3,000. Councilmember Rickaby stated that if the City held a referendum it would find out what the people want. A survey won't predict Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Twenty July 13, 1992 how the population would vote. Rickaby stated that she knows Council will go along with this. Rickaby stated the City does not need a lot of demographics because we have a lot from the last survey. This survey needs to include how people feel about single hauler and multiple hauler. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried REPORTS• Report of Councilmembers: Councilmember Rickaby: Would like to direct the City Attorney to look into issues that cities that have a contract with one hauler fare with further liability from Superfund. Mayor Linke asked if this is something the City Administrator could do. This would save attorney's fees. Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, indicated that there are several groups where she could obtain the information. If she • is unable to get the information then Jim could be directed to accomplish this. Mayor Linke suggested the City Administrator look into this first and report to the Council. This will save the City money. Councilmember Rickaby stated that the City could also save money from the liability. Councilmember Blanchard: No report. Blanchard asked about the status of the garbage haulers who were not licensed contingent to supply of additional information. Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, stated that all haulers but one had submitted their customer lists. Orduno stated that she met with a hauler this morning. This hauler works in many cities and is concerned about privacy issues and does this information once given to us become public information and could be obtained from other cities. Orduno asked that the City Council consider giving the haulers two weeks to comply and to resolve privacy aspects. Blanchard stated then that there is one hauler without a license. Jim Thomson stated that allowing this hauler to be unlicensed for two weeks more does not increase the City's liability. • Mounds View City Council .Regular Meeting Page Twenty-One July 13, 1992 MOTION/SECOND: Blanchard/Wuori to grant two weeks extension for the hauler to supply list of customers. VOTE: 4 ayes 1 nay Motion Carried Councilmember Ouick: No report. Councilmember Wuori: Announced that the Community Theater's production is Camelot. Tickets are on sale and there is a group rate of $1 reduction on ticket prices. Wuori made a plea to the Press in attendance to help with publicity. Report of Mayor. 1. Mavor Linke noted how bad our fax worked and how the fax machine is a part of modern day business. A fax machine is budgeted for next year's budget for $2,600. Linke would like to see staff investigate and purchase a fax at this time because of increased needs and the need for a plain paper fax. • MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Blanchard to authorize staff to investigate and purchase a plain paper fax at a cost not to exceed $2,500 to be taken from the Contingency Account VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 2. On Thursday, July 16, there is a meeting of various cities regarding the Ramsey County Sheriff's Dispatch process. Mayor Linke stated that he attended the first meeting, but will be unable to attend this meeting due to prior commitments. Samantha will attend. The meeting will be held at Shoreview City Hall at 7:00 p.m. Report of Administrator: 1. Reported that she had received a call from Western Bank and they will open their doors at 9:00 a.m. on July 20, 1992. The ribbon cutting will be held at 8:30 a.m. that same day. A grand opening will be held in September. 2. The National Geographic Survey moved into Mounds View Business Park adjacent to Perkins. Re ort of Attorne No report. Mayor Linke announced that there will be a Council Budget Work Session on ~uly 20, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Council is Mounds View City Council regular Meeting Page Twenty-Two July 13, 1992 scheduled for July 27, 1992 and the next Council Work Session is August 3, 1992. There being no further business before the Council, Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 11:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mich le Sev n Depu y Cle • •