Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2012/03/12 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ITY C COUNCIL vop CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA AppRO Regular Meeting March 12,2012 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10,Mounds View,MN 55112 7:04 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Flaherty, Stigney, Hull,Mueller, Gunn. NOT PRESENT: None. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday,March 12,2012,City Council Agenda. • MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve the Monday, March 12, 2012, agenda as presented. Ayes—5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC INPUT Mike Reed, 2208 Lois Drive, thanked the plow truck drivers for clearing the snow after the recent storm. Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, spoke to the Council regarding vacant and foreclosed homes. He understood there were parties interested in buying the vacant homes, but financing was difficult. He encouraged the Council to seek other options for revitalizing the housing stock beyond the CDBG funds as the number of vacant homes within the City was growing. He recommended the Council use TIF funds to assist with renovating and purchasing foreclosed homes. Mayor Flaherty stated the Council was reviewing housing stock options to address the vacant and foreclosed homes in the City. Tom Carlson, Woodlawn Drive, asked how many vacant homes there were in the City at this time. • Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 Regular Meeting Page 2 • Mayor Flaherty noted the City had 115 foreclosed properties and 43 are presently unoccupied. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Resolution 7910, Supporting Ramsey County's "Beyond the Yellow Ribbon" Program. Mayor Flaherty stated the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Campaign was requesting a Resolution of Support from the City of Mounds View. He then read the proposed Resolution in full for the record. Council Member Gunn provided further information on the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon initiative. She stated the City does not have many of the amenities (hospitals, clinics, etc.)the program was seeking and was therefore supporting Ramsey County's program. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Mueller. To Adopt 7910, Supporting Ramsey County's "Beyond the Yellow Ribbon"Program. Council Member Mueller noted at the upcoming Ramsey County League of Local Government meeting there would be an update from the County on the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program. Mayor Flaherty encouraged residents with family members deployed to contact City Hall to learn • more about this program. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. B. Public Information Meeting for Wellhead Protection Plan—Part 1 Public Works Director DeBar stated that the City was put on notice in 2009 to complete a Wellhead Protection Plan. This was mandated for all public water suppliers according to Minnesota State Rules Chapter 4720. The plan was broken down into two parts. First, it requires a detailed analysis of each well, the pumps used for the aquifer, ground water flow models, delineating the wellhead protection areas, vulnerability assessments and identifying potential pollution for each well. Public Works Director DeBar explained the second part of the plan requires the City to inventory the sources of contamination within influenced area of the wells and developing management strategies. The Department of Health oversees Chapter 4720 and the City has until April 15, 2013 to complete the Wellhead Protection Plan. He explained that Barr Engineering worked with the City to complete Part 1, which has been approved by the Department of Health. He noted that John Greer, with Barr Engineering, was present to discuss Part 1. John Greer, Barr Engineering, introduced himself and presented the Council with a summary of the Part 1 Wellhead Protection Plan. He noted the City has six wells that pump from a total of four different aquifers. The study needed to address future water demands through 2015. The • Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 • Regular Meeting Page 3 future flow evaluations were discussed in detail. He found that wells, 1, 2, and 3 were not vulnerable, but that wells 4, 5 and 6 were vulnerable. This vulnerability does not mean the wells are contaminated. Mr. Greer discussed the scoring for wells 4, 5 and 6 stating the vulnerability did not mean each well was contaminated. He explained that the geology was more of a concern in addition to the steady use of these wells. He stated the aquifer vulnerability was rated low to moderate for each of these wells by the Department of Health. Council Member Mueller requested further clarification on the vulnerability classification. Mr. Greer stated the aquifer vulnerability refers to how long it takes water to get from the surface to the aquifer. A low classification takes surface water several years to reach the aquifer, while a moderate classification can take up to a decade. Mayor Flaherty questioned why the City was drawing water from four different aquifers. Mr. Greer stated this was just a matter of when and where the wells were located. In the past, various aquifers were targeted for maximum pumping. Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, asked what actions would be taken if an aquifer were to become contaminated. Mr. Greer indicated it would depend on the contamination and where it was coming from. One action would be to pump the water out, another option would be to treat • the water. Mayor Flaherty thanked Mr. Greer for his time this evening and for the detailed report. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing, Resolution 7903, Variance Appeal Request for a Garage to Exceed the Allowed Height Limit at 8027 Woodlawn Drive. Planning Associate Heller stated that a variance appeal request from Timothy Downing was before the Council for consideration this evening. The original request was heard by the Planning Commission in December of 2011, where the request was denied. In October of 2007, the applicant requested a building permit to build a second garage on the property and all plans met City requirements. Extensions were granted, as the applicant did not begin construction immediately. Planning Associate Heller explained in August of 2010, the applicant requested a footings inspection from the City. She noted a year later, it came to staff's attention that a garage had been constructed on the site that did not meet the submitted plans. The garage exceeds the present 18 foot height limit as it is 221 feet high at the peak. The modified plans should have been brought to the City for review and approval before construction began. She stated the garage was mostly complete at this time. Planning Associate Heller indicated the Planning Commission heard the variance request in • December of 2011. A public hearing was held and comments were taken from neighbors. While Mounds View City Council March 12, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 4 several neighbors did not object to the garage itself, the feeling was the rules should have been followed. The Commission could not find the practical difficulty in this case and, therefore, denied the variance request. Planning Associate Heller stated at this time, the applicant was appealing the variance denial by the Planning Commission. Staff posted another public hearing for this case, and an email was received from the property owners at 2508 Sherwood stating they did not object to the garage. Mayor Flaherty also received a phone call stating a neighbor did not object to the garage. Staff understood that the garage was well built, but found no reason for the variance to be approved. She presented several photos of the garage at 8027 Woodlawn for the Council to review. Planning Associate Heller requested the Council hold a public hearing, allow the applicant to speak, and then take action on the Resolution. Mayor Flaherty opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Christy Downing, 8027 Woodlawn Drive, reviewed a written statement with the Council. She requested the Council reconsider the variance request denied by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Downing believed the situation was a big misunderstanding and requested the Council keep their minds open while reviewing the information this evening. She stated the City has been concerned with the height of the garage. It was noted the garage was built according to plans, with the exception of a five inch difference in height and the added dormers. • Mrs. Downing stated the report from the City states the initial plan submitted showed a height of 11 feet at the midway point, this was inaccurate. The original plans had a height of 15 feet at the midway point. She reported the City changed their code regarding garage heights, since the original plans were approved. Their garage was being held to the new limit. A change to the trusses brought about the increase in garage height. Tim Downing, 8027 Woodlawn Drive, stated the garage was constructed between August of 2010 and March of 2011. He had received permission from the City to build a garage that had a 15 foot mid-way height which resulted in an overall height of 21 feet at the peak. This was changed to 151 feet at the mid-way point which resulted in an overall height of 221/2 feet. He understood he did not have permission to add dormers to the garage. Mr. Downing stated the staff report claims the garage that was built was different from the plans submitted in 2007. He explained the plans are almost the same, with the exception of the dormers. The original plans were for a single story garage with attic trusses, to allow for storage. The garage that was built was a single story garage with attic trusses with a dormer on each side of the roof. He clarified that the garage was not a two story. Mrs. Downing requested the Council to consider the negative impact the community would feel by denying the variance request. She understood the need for Zoning Codes within the City, however, there was some flexibility built into this system through the variance process. She felt her garage was not causing harm to her neighbors and was in line with the character of the • Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 Regular Meeting Page 5 neighborhood. Each of her neighbors supported the garage as it was built. She noted the size of the garage was consistent with the design of the house. She felt her lot did have a practical difficulty and should allow for a larger garage due to the larger size of her lot. She requested the Council be flexible and allow for the additional storage space. She noted there were three other homes within 350 feet of her home that had a second garage that was as tall or taller than her garage. Mrs. Downing stated the garage and its incompletion caused a financial difficulty to her family. The couple has been unable to refinance their home because the project was incomplete. In addition, if the roof and front portion of the garage had to be removed, this would cause yet another financial hardship and delay the completion. This would decrease the aesthetic value of the garage as well. She requested the Council reconsider the request and approve the variance. John Stacey, 8000 Woodlawn Drive, indicated he assisted Mr. Downing with the trusses on his garage. He did not have any issues with the garage or its height. He felt the house height and garage height were uniform. Dan Larson, 8046 Woodlawn Drive, stated he did not object to the garage. Tom Carlson, 8051 Woodlawn Drive, agreed with the comments thus far. He did not object to the garage height. He felt the buildings were similar in character and did not feel the need to make a change in its height. Mike Reed, 2208 Lois Drive, felt the City Code of 2007 should be followed as that was when the permit was approved. Hearing no additional public input, Mayor Flaherty closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Council Member Mueller requested further information regarding the differences between City Code in 2007 versus 2011. Planning Associate Heller indicated the 15 feet was measured midway between the peak and the eave. However, a steep pitched roof would allow for a taller garage. To simplify this measurement, the overall maximum garage height was changed to 18 feet. Mayor Flaherty indicated the Downings had a great deal of support from their neighbors. He stated the Downings understood they were not prepared for the Planning Commission meeting and asked for the tone of that meeting. Planning Associate Heller stated the Planning Commission did not support the request because it was a variance after the fact. City Code was not followed and changes were made to the plans without being submitted to the City. The vote of the Planning Commission was 6-.1. Mayor Flaherty commented the original permit was taken out in 2007. He questioned how long this permit was viable. Planning Associate Heller explained building code allows for the permit to remain in place for six months, so long as work was being done on the site. The Building • Official can grant extensions through a written request. She indicated the Downings had Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 Regular Meeting Page 6 requested an extension. Mayor Flaherty inquired if an extension was requested by the Downings after 2009, at which time the new City Code would have been explained. Planning Associate Heller was unaware if another extension was requested, or that staff made him aware of the code change. She noted the original plan would have been acceptable under the mid-point criteria. City Administrator Ericson indicated because the permit was acquired before the code changed the plans could have been completed as submitted. However, the plans changed, and should have been brought to the City for approval. Mayor Flaherty questioned if Mr. Downing had made the City aware of the change in height proposed for the garage and the addition of the dormers. Mr. Downing stated he did not inform the City of the changes. Council Member Hull inquired if the Council would be setting precedence by approving this variance. Planning Associate Heller stated this very well could create precedence. Mayor Flaherty indicated he was struggling with the fact the garage changes were not brought to the Council or City prior to being completed. A decision was made by the homeowner to build the garage bigger than the original plans allowed. City Administrator Ericson clarified that the original plans would not be consistent with today's code, but were consistent with the code in • 2007. Mayor Flaherty questioned what options were available for the garage. Mr. Downing stated the garage was not built to comply with the 18 foot height restriction. It could not be engineered or lowered to 18 feet with its current trusses and would therefore need an entirely new roof. He feared much of the materials would not be salvageable. Mayor Flaherty feared that a precedence would be set if the variance was approved. It would open the door for others in the community to build a garage or accessory structure that does not meet the City's Zoning Code and request a variance after the fact. Mr. Downing stated he completes construction work in a number of neighboring communities and he has never heard of a resident being forced to tear down a roof or building structure due to non-compliance. Mayor Flaherty asked if the garage complied with the previous code. Planning Associate Heller stated the garage was nine inches over the previous standard. Mr. Downing commented that he has a neighbor with a garage the same exact size and height as his. He questioned if the Council would take action against his neighbor to bring that garage into compliance. Mayor Flaherty questioned how many garage building permits were outstanding and could be 1111 Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 • Regular Meeting Page 7 affected by the change to City Code. City Administrator Ericson did not recall there being any garage building permits outstanding prior to 2009. He stated this was a unique case as the plans submitted were not followed. The difference in the garage height from the plans submitted was approximately two feet. He understood this was to be a small number, but again, the change in plans was not brought to the City for approval before being completed. Council Member Hull questioned how much work would be required to bring the garage to the 20 foot height which was originally submitted. Mr. Downing stated this would be much more doable than an 18 feet height. He explained he would not have added the extra two feet if the City's building the inspector at the time had commented he wouldn't get up and measure the final height. It did not occur to him that Don would retire and not be available to support his request. Mayor Flaherty agreed with Council Member Hull's suggestion to bring the garage height to 20 feet. He did not want to see the Council open the floodgates to residents requesting variances after the fact. Mr. Carlson questioned if the Council was going to pursue each homeowner within the City to ensure their garage height matched the plans submitted with the City. City Administrator Ericson stated the key difference is that if the City inspector completed the final inspection and a certificate of occupancy was granted,the City could not take action. Mr. Carlson asked why the City was applying discretion to this case and not to all garage height cases. He questioned if the City was diligent about following through with final inspections. City Administrator Ericson indicated the City did not have a large number of structural building permits outstanding. Mayor Flaherty added that this was also dependent upon the inspector at the time the project was completed. Mr. Carlson felt the Downings were being singled out and felt this wasn't fair. Mr. Downing indicated the suggestion made by Council Member Hull was more agreeable than removing the entire garage roof. Council Member Gunn stated she was on the Planning Commission when the garage height requirements were changed. She explained that part of the homeowners' responsibility with submitting plans was to follow through on the plans submitted. If the plans were changed or altered,this created new circumstances that needed to be reviewed by the City. This needed to be done before completion and not after the fact. Council Member Gunn indicated the applicant admitted he did not submit the dormer plans, as they could be rejected. The applicant knew full well that he had changed the plans without City approval. As to the garage height, if the plans were followed, this would not be an issue, but again, the applicant took it upon himself to make a change without seeking City approval. She recommended the garage height be brought down two feet to the originally approved height of • 201 feet. Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 Regular Meeting Page 8 • Council Member Mueller stated the City of Minnetonka approved a garage variance for a resident several years ago, which was challenged by a neighboring property. The City of Minnetonka then found itself in a very messy and expensive lawsuit because the variance code was not followed properly. For this reason, the City of Mounds View had to strictly follow the variance parameters. She did not see that the case before the Council this evening met the City's variance codes. She was in favor of the solution proposed by Council Member Hull as a compromise. Council Member Stigney asked if the Council were to proceed with the compromise if the garage would be brought into the original parameters and not require a variance. Planning Associate Heller stated this would bring the garage into compliance. Mayor Flaherty stated bringing the garage into compliance with the 2007 City Code requirements was the goal. City Administrator Ericson questioned how the garage height would be reduced by two feet. Mr. Downing stated he had a friend, Wayne Larson, owner of Larson Engineering, would assist him to reduce the truss height by two feet. City Administrator Ericson suggested action on the item be tabled until after Mr. Larson can review the roof and provide engineering comments. Mr. Downing was confident this work could • be completed. Mrs. Downing thanked the Council for their time this evening and for hearing out the variance request. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 7903, Upholding the Planning Commission's Denial of the Variance for an Accessory Building to Exceed the 18 Foot Allowed Height Limit at 8027 Woodlawn Drive with the understanding Mr. Downing would be working with an engineer to bring the garage into compliance with the original height from the 2007 plans. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. B. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing, Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 869, an Amendment to Zoning Code Chapter 1121 about Accessing Detached Parking Areas. Planning Associate Heller stated that one of the most common permits through the City was for driveways and expansion of driveways. She indicated the City allowed for up to 300 square feet of a gravel parking area. Access to these detached parking areas on a frequent basis has become a concern. Staff has drafted a City Code Amendment to address these concerns about accessing detached parking areas. Mayor Flaherty opened the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. • Mounds View City Council March 12, 2012 • Regular Meeting Page 9 Hearing no public input,Mayor Flaherty closed the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. Mayor Flaherty summarized that this Ordinance ensured that residents would be accessing a frequently used detached parking area only through an approved curb cut. Planning Associate Heller stated this would disallow residents from using their lawns to access detached parking or storage sheds. She stated the City did not want residents driving over the new curbs either. Council Member Mueller suggested the term "frequent use" be greater defined within the Ordinance. Mayor Flaherty was comfortable with the term as it would increase the difficulty for staff to enforce. Council Member Mueller questioned how the issue would be enforced. Planning Associate Heller stated staff would monitor the properties in question over a period of time to see how the property was being used and if there was a violation. MOTION/SECOND: Hull/Gunn. To Waive the First Reading and Introduce Ordinance 869, an Amendment to Zoning Code Chapter 1121 regarding Accessing Detached Parking Areas. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. • C. Resolution 7911,Approving Reestablishment of Precinct Boundaries. Assistant City Administrator Crane stated that the County was required to review the redistricting of the City after completion of the 2010 census. She noted all four precincts would remain at the Community Center. She requested the Council approve Resolution 7911 approving the precincts boundaries for the 2012 primary and general elections. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 7911, Approving Reestablishment of Precinct Boundaries. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. D. Resolution 7912, Approving Step Wage Adjustments for Agnes Quasabart, Accountant and Police Officer Andrew Olson. Mayor Flaherty stepped out of the Council Chambers. Assistant City Administrator Crane stated Accountant Agnes Quasabart and Police Officer Andrew Olson were due a step wage adjustment after completing a satisfactory performance evaluation and one year of service to the City of Mounds View. Staff recommends approval of the wage adjustments. • MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Hull. To Adopt Resolution 7912, Approving Step Wage Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 Regular Meeting Page 10 411 Adjustments for Agnes Quasabart,Accountant and Police Officer Andrew Olson. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Absent— 1 (Flaherty) Motion carried. E. Resolution 7914, Awarding a Construction Contract to Rosenquist Construction, Inc. for 2012 Reroofing of Community Center and Water Treatment Plant No. 1 Project. Public Works Director DeBar explained that in 2010 the City completed a Roof Management Plan. At that time, the Community Center and Water Treatment Plant No. 1 were recommended to be reroofed in 2012. In October of 2011, Inspec was hired to prepare plans and specs for the 2012 reroofing project. The City Council approved the project on January 23rd and the advertisement for bid was published in February. Public Works Director DeBar reported the City received 12 qualified bids for the project. The prices ranged from $267,000 to $482,793. He reviewed the bid tabulations. The low bidder was Rosenquist Construction, Inc. out of Minneapolis with a bid for the Community Center of $222,000 and$45,000 for Water Treatment Plant No. 1. Public Works Director DeBar indicated the original estimate for the Community Center reroofing was $370,000. He was pleased the work came in under this amount as the City had budgeted $250,000 for the project. The overall project cost was estimated to be$281,000 for the reroofing • and consultant fees. He explained the City was pleased with the work completed by Rosenquist Construction in 2011 and recommended the Council approve the construction contract. Construction would begin in April and would be substantially complete by June. Mayor Flaherty returned to the Council Chambers. Council Member Mueller questioned what type of contingency expenses were anticipated for this project. Public Works Director DeBar stated with the 2011 project a $3,500 safety railing was needed to meet OSHA requirements. He did not anticipate a great deal of contingency expenses for the Water Treatment Plant. However, the Community Center may require additional expenses if the polystyrene insulation needed to be replaced. He felt the $19,000 contingency fund would cover any unforeseen expenses. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 7914, Awarding a Construction Contract to Rosenquist Construction, Inc. for 2012 Reroofing of Community Center and Water Treatment Plant No. 1 Project. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. F. Resolution 7915, Awarding a Construction Contract to Odland Protective Coatings Inc.for 2012 Water Tower Reconditioning Project. Public Works Director DeBar stated the water tower reconditioning project planned for the 411 Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 • Regular Meeting Page 11 summer involved both painting and structural repairs. He noted the initial inspection conducted by KLM recommended the water tower be completed sometime between 2010 and 2012. The scope of the work being completed has increased slightly with the plans and specifications needing revision. Public Works Director DeBar reported the Council approved these plans on January 23rd and the advertisement for bids was published in the Sun Focus on February 2nd and February 9`h. He noted a pre-bid meeting was held on February 28`h. Three contractors attended this meeting. The City received three bid packages, two for the early schedule and three bids for the later schedule. The low bidder was Odland Protective Coatings out of Rogers, Minnesota and came in at $449,000. Staff recommended the Council award the construction contract to Odland for a late season project. Public Works Director DeBar understood the late season project would impact the Festival in the Park which has been discussed with the Festival Committee. He indicated the 2012 budget had $700,000 budgeted for the project and the estimated total project costs with consultant fees was $500,000. A contingency of 10% was being requested for the project. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 7915, Awarding a Construction Contract to Odland Protective Coatings Inc. for 2012 Water Tower Reconditioning Project. • Mayor Flaherty was pleased to see the cost savings provided by completing the project later in the season. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Mueller asked to remove Item C and Item F from the Consent Agenda. Council Member Stigney request Item A be pulled. Mayor Flaherty asked to remove Item B and D for clarification from staff. 1 ! . . . . . • • • • 1 ! ► . . . 1 1 • • . • • • • • •• • • • • 1 • • • • p I • I • Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 Regular Meeting Page 12 411 E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, March 28, 2012, at 7:05 p.m. for the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 870, Amending City Code Chapters 514 and 1106 to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Occupation. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Mueller. To Approve the Consent Agenda Item E. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. A. Resolution 7906, Authorizing a 3 Year Contract for Pest Control for the Community Center,Public Works and City Hall Buildings. Council Member Stigney commented he did not feel that this was a worthwhile expense and for this reason, he would not support the expense. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 7906, Authorizing a 3 Year Contract for Pest Control for the Community Center, Public Works and City Hall Buildings. Mayor Flaherty respected Council Member Stigney's position but was in favor of keeping ahead of any pest concerns within City buildings. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. B. Resolution 7916, Approving Contracts with 4 Seasons Tree Care, Inc. and Upper Cut Tree Services for Tree Removal and Trimming Services. Public Works Director DeBar stated a three year contract was being signed with the tree contractors. He indicated the contract would allow for pricing to be adjusted on a yearly basis by November 15`h. Staff recommended the Council approve the contracts with the term ending March 31, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 7916, Approving Contracts with 4 Seasons Tree Care, Inc. and Upper Cut Tree Services for Tree Removal and Trimming Services. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. C. Resolution 7908, Amending the Personnel Manual Relating to Uniform Reimbursement for Civilian Police Department Employees. Council Member Mueller stated she pulled this item to inform the public that uniform reimbursements were being made to allow the City to remain in compliance with union requirements. •