Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2000/05/08• • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~? ~ h ~' µ ~J ~, 1. 2. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER Regular Meeting May 8, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, May 8, 2000, City Council Agenda Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. Mayor Coughlin stated staff has suggested Item l OD be removed from the agenda, and replaced with an Item entitled "Taking Action on the Request of 8438 Groveland Road, Appealing Denial of Variance Request by Mounds View Planning Commission:" Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of Item 4B, approval of the Special City Council meeting minutes of Apri124, 2000. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To accept the May 8, 2000, City Council agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, April 24, 2000, Special City Council Minutes MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To accept the April 24, 2000 Special City Council minutes as presented. Council Member Marty stated he would abstain, as he was not present at the meeting. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Abstain - 1 (Marty) Motion carried. Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 • B. Monday, April 24, 2000 City Council Minutes MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To accept the April 24, 2000 City Council minutes as presented. Council Member Marty indicated he would abstain, for the reason previously stated. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Abstain - 1 (Marty) Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 6. REPORTS Mayor Coughlin reported he attended the Cable Committee meeting, where there was discussion regarding promoting the Cable Access Channel, in order to obtain a greater viewing audience and to attempt to meet the informational needs of the residents as best as possible. Mayor Coughlin reported he recently attended an Area Leadership Breakfast at which a variety of School District and elected officials were present. He stated this was a very good meeting, • with a special speaker who was very informative. He indicated that having attended this Breakfast the previous year, he found this to be a worthwhile event to attend once again. Mayor Coughlin extended his thanks to Pastor Bill McKinney of Salem Baptist Church for inviting him to attend the National Day of Prayer meeting. He indicated this event was approximately two-hours in length, with a variety of Churches in the area that had gathered to recognize the National Day of Prayer. He stated this was a very inspiring and wonderful time, and reiterated his appreciation to Pastor McKinney and all of the other area pastors for inviting him to attend. Mayor Coughlin stated he attended the previous Planning Commission meeting, where there was discussion pertaining to the City's Stormwater Management Plan. He indicated the Commission would be working on this item at their next few meetings. He stated there was a video presentation from the League of Minnesota Cities, which discussed the correct and incorrect ways to conduct a meeting, the proper focus of Planning Commissions and Councils, and what might sidetrack those groups. He indicated this 20 minute video was available to the Council, and could be presented at an upcoming Work Session if the Council so desired. Mayor Coughlin extended his appreciation to Tom Kinney of the Police Department for his assistance in coordinating Lieutenant Brick's retirement party, which was held the previous Saturday. He indicated four of the five Council Members attended this enjoyable event. He • extended his congratulations to Lieutenant Brick for a job well done during his many years of service to the City of Mounds View, and wished him well in his retirement. Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 Mayor Coughlin reported he had been to the Capitol the previous week, as well as that date, to • discuss the airport legislation with a variety of individuals in attempts to ensure that the matter is proceeding. He indicated Representative Satveer Chaudhary of 52a had issued a press release, which took a pretty good "pot shot" at Representative Barbara Haake and the Mounds View Council, with regard to the manner in which they have been dealing with the airport issue. He stated publicly and for the record that he thought this press release was completely out of bounds, and "off the top rope." He indicated Representative Haake has gone so far as to push herself to virtual exhaustion, and has spent literally hundreds of hours on the airport issue for the City of Mounds View, somewhat to her own political peril, as she is now known as the "Airport Lady." Mayor Coughlin pointed out that Representative Haake and Senator Steve Novak have been working together in a bipartisan effort to attempt to hammer out a deal for the City of 1V~ounds View and surrounding areas for the past year and a half. He indicated that for someone to step in at the last minute and attempt to take credit, implying that they are more empathetic to the community than its own representatives, who have been working so diligently on this bill, is completely out of bounds, and he denounces that. He advised that these two representatives deserve our praise and thanks, and it angers him significantly that their good names and good efforts, in a bipartisan effort, have been, in a way, slandered by this press release. Council Member Marty stated he had also seen this press release, and was in total agreement with Mayor Coughlin's statements. Interim Administrator Ulrich reported he attended apre-construction meeting for County Road I that date. He stated there would be some widening of County Road I from Quincy Street to ( )Street in Shoreview. He indicated the bridge would be replaced, and two traffic signals would be installed in conjunction with this improvement. He advised that the contract was awarded on May 6`'', however, they would be unable to close the detour prior to June 9`", when school lets out. He indicated the completion date for County Road I, open to two lanes of traffic, would be on or before August 14`", with a final completion date of October 15, 2000. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated there were other requirements for completing the bridge project on time. He explained that the crew would most likely be working 7 days per week, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and possibly Sundays as well, in order to complete this project on time. He indicated the contract contains incentives and penalty clauses for the timely completion of the work. He stated that informational flyers were available at City Hall, and residents could also keep informed regarding this project via the County Website. Mayor Coughlin requested staff create a link to the County Web page, to provide that this information is available through the City's Website as well. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated the city of Spring Lake Park would be holding their Annual Tower Days, with a fireworks display, which they would request the Council approve by motion. He explained that as a courtesy, they have informed the surrounding communities regarding this • event. He indicated the American Fireworks Display would be contracted for the fireworks, which would be launched from a barge in the middle of Spring Lake. He advised that the shells would be no larger than 3 inches in size, and a 210-foot radius has been approved for this Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 purpose. He indicated the Fire Department has conducted the background checks, and finding no • outstanding complaints pertaining to this company, have given their approval for this event. Council Member Quick inquired if the location of the barge would be shifted to accommodate the direction of the wind. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated he was not certain, however, he would assume it would be adjusted. Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the date of the event. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated it would be held on June 11`h, at 10:00 p.m., adding that this would be the 25-year celebration of this event. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Stigney. To Approve the Request of Spring Lake Park to Hold a Fireworks Display at their Annual Tower Days on June 11, 2000. Council Member Marty stated he would like to see Council Member Quick's concerns addressed. The Motioner and Seconder agreed to this friendly amendment. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. City Attorney Long stated he believed Mayor Coughlin to be correct in his statements regarding the extensive efforts of Representative Haake and Senator Novak. He indicated he had received word that the final details of the Tax Bill were completed in Roger Moe and Steve Sviggum's office moments ago, and the process of printing the bill for consideration on Tuesday morning was underway. He explained that in light of this, he would assume the House would go into Session at 11:00 a.m. and one of the first items on the agenda would be consideration of the language that was passed. City Attorney Long advised that the House passed Representative Haake's Bill, and the Senate unanimously passed Senator Novak's Bill, with an amendment that came out of the city of Richfield pertaining to the Airport Tax Increment Financing District. He stated there was some question as to whether or not that would be dealt with in the Tax Committee, and this is still uncertain, however, he would assume that the House would vote on the Senate Bill at that time. He indicated that assuming the House does not concur, because the Tax Chair is opposed to the amendment that passed in the Senate, they would appoint a Conference Committee, and resolve what should be a very simple debate regarding the removal of that amendment, and send it back to both bodies for approval. City Attorney Long stated at this time, there are three Session days remaining, and if the House goes into Session on Tuesday, there would only be two, however, as set forth in the Constitution, they are unable to enact any bills on the final day, therefore, there would only be two days left to work with. He commented this should not be a problem, unless the House attempts to complete their business in one day, and then adjourn, however, it is believed that they would recess for a couple of days to determine if the Governor vetoes any bills. He advised that all of the details of the airport legislation should be completed by Tuesday, which would allow one day for a vote when the House reconvenes, and he believed this would occur during the upcoming week. Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Mayor Coughlin indicated he could certainly attest to the fact that City Attorney Long has devoted himself relentlessly to this issue. He stated he speaks with City Attorney Long in this regard on a daily basis, and he greatly appreciates his efforts, which have gone above and beyond the call of duty. He advised that City Attorney Long is deserving of much praise in this regard, adding that he has acted as the glue that holds this bipartisan effort together behind the scenes. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Licenses for Approval. C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, May 22, 2000, at 7:05 p.m. to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Shed at 7474 Groveland Road. D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, May 22, 2000, at 7:10 p.m. to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 2251 Oakwood Drive. E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, May 22, 2000, at 7:15 p.m. to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive. F. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, May 22, 2000, at 7:20 p.m. to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage at 4749 Old Highway 8, Ace Supply Company. G. Resolution 5438 Amending Personnel Manual. H. Consideration of Skidloader Purchase. I. Resolution 5439 Adjusting Salaries of Full Time Female Dominated Positions for Pay Equity and Authorizing Various Budget Modifications for Personnel Related Issues. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I as presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin stated in light of the number of requests for conditional use permits on the Agenda, he would request the Council direct staff and the Planning Commission to reevaluate the Code as it pertains to oversized sheds, garages, and items of this nature, in order to avoid the necessity for large numbers of public hearings that appear to be very routine in nature, and to simplify the process for the residents, as well. • MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Quick. To Direct Staff and the Planning Commission to Reevaluate the Code as it pertains to Oversized Sheds, Garages, and Items of this Nature. Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 • Ayes- 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mayor Coughlin indicated there was no unfinished business before the Council, other than to state that Highway 10 discussions are ongoing, and the Council would be discussing this matter later in the meeting. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR There were no requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Consideration of Resolution 5437, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit to Allow for the Construction of a Twin-home at 7654 Woodlawn Drive. Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was discussed at the previous Council Work Session, and is a request for a wetland buffer permit for the property located at 7654 Woodlawn Drive. He indicated that for many years, the property owner has been attempting to sell this lot, which is located near the Sunrise United Methodist Church and adjacent to the Woodlawn Terrace Multi- unit family community, which is comprised of a number of twm homes and afour-plea. Planning Associate Ericson stated this lot has been viewed as somewhat problematic, in that there have been some issues with regard to illegal dumping and lack of maintenance, as well as the presence of some wetland on the site. He explained that this is not an attractive site, and the issues with the wetland make it somewhat undesirable for development. He indicated the property owner recently had the lot delineated, and this delineation was forwarded to the Rice Creek Watershed District, which signed off with a minor revision. He stated the site survey that was prepared with the Watershed District's revised delineation was provided to the Council at their previous meeting. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff requested information from the City Engineer, and received a letter in response which indicates there were some concerns that one corner of the proposed twinhome would be located in close proximity to the wetland as delineated by Rice Creek Watershed District. He explained that in light of this, the City Engineer has offered suggestions pertaining to buffer area and minimum building elevation, and advised that there should be no alteration of the land below the 902 contour of the property. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has prepared a resolution for Council action at this time, with a number of stipulations. He indicated the resolution would allow for the construction of a twinhome on the lot, as long as certain conditions are met. He explained that the applicant would be required to submit a detailed grading plan, which indicates the elevations and the contours of the lot. He advised that there could be no filling below the 902 elevation of the property, no fill Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • in the wetland, itself, and a retaining wall would be constructed pursuant to Rice Creek Watershed District requirements. He indicated the applicant would also be required to submit a $1,000 letter of credit, cash surety, or bond, which would further protect the wetland and prevent against any unauthorized filling. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, the contractor, and the surveyor have all reviewed the stipulations, and they are in agreement with them. He explained that these conditions would require a bit more work on their part, however, in the sense that this is a wetland, and wetlands play an important role in the City's hydrology, it is the City's intent to do everything within its power to protect them. He stated he believed the resolution before the Council accomplishes this objective. Council Member Quick inquired if staff was aware of any problems that have occurred with regard to the footings or foundations of any of the structures the Council has considered, that are located in close proximity to a wetland. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not aware of any problems that relate to the issuance of a wetland buffer permit. He indicated he has heard there could be some problems with the property located directly north of the subject property, in terms of a wet basement. Council Member Quick stated his concern was not with regard to wet basements, as this is a somewhat typical occurrence, but rather, with regard to the' settling or cracking of footings or foundations. Planning Associate Ericson stated to his knowledge, there were no problems of this nature. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No.5437, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit for Victor Loeffler, 7654 Woodlawn Drive; Mounds View Planning Case WB00-002. Council Member Marty requested clarification regarding Stipulation No. 9, which indicates "Any loss of flood storage capacity in the area below the 902 elevation shall be replaced elsewhere on the lot at a minimum of one-to-one for the affected areas clearly shown on the grading plan, including the areas of fill listed in cubic feet." He inquired where this replacement would be located. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the wetland angles away from the proposed structure, therefore, there is a significant area on the property that could be set aside for additional flood storage capacity. He indicated the contractor has stated that maintaining the 902 protection would not be a problem, and does not anticipate that there would be any filling below that contour. He explained that in the event that something must be done with regard to the western corner of the proposed structure, there is significant space to the south that could be utilized for this purpose. • Ma or Cou hlin stated this was the recommendation of SEH Pro'ect En ineer, Beth Peterson. Y g J g Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 • Council Member Marty stated he takes exception to any construction within 10 feet of a delineated wetland, as this is well within the 100-foot buffer zone. Mayor Coughlin inquired staff believed this lot, as it currently exists, represented a detriment to the tax base of the area, and that it is affecting the value of the surrounding properties because of its degraded state and condition. Planning Associate Ericson stated he believed this was correct. He stated the property is definitely an eyesore, and reflects negatively on the neighborhood. Mayor Coughlin indicated that the construction of a $150 to $160,000 twinhome on the lot would expand the tax base, and hopefully fulfill a dual role in terms of cleaning up the neighborhood. He added that this would increase property values as well, which would further improve the tax base. Council Member Quick stated the wetland buffer provides the Council with certain powers or privileges in that area. He inquired if the City's requirements have all been met by the contractor and with the proposed site plan. Planning Associate Ericson stated he believed they were, particularly in light of the stipulations presented in the resolution. Council Member Quick inquired if the applicant has done everything required of them in order to • meet the wetland buffer permit and Code requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated in staff's opinion, yes. Mayor Coughlin requested clarification regarding the zoning designation of the subject property. Planning Associate Ericson stated the property is zoned R-2. Mayor Coughlin stated R-2 Zoning District allows for uses such as twinhomes and duplexes, and the R-3 District allows for townhomes. He indicated the proposed use of the property would be more residential in nature. Council Member Stigney inquired if the City has a "hold harmless" clause, in the event of future water damage to the structure or the property that it is being constructed upon. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that by reference, Stipulation 12 requires that the applicant enter into a development agreement with the City, which among other things, would hold the City harmless and without any liability in the event of flooding or water damage to the improved property. Council Member Quick inquired who owned the remainder of the wetland in this area. Planning Associate Ericson stated Sunrise United Methodist Church. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Marty) Motion carried. • B. Discussion of Charter Amendments /Form of Government and Resolution No. Mounds View City Council May 8,1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 • City Attorney Long stated the Council requested legal staff to examine a matter that is set forth in State Statutes, Chapter 410.12, Subd. 5. He advised that there is a provision in State law, which allows City Councils to propose amendments to the Charter by preparing a proposal and submitting it to the Charter Commission for review and ultimately, on to the ballot. He stated staff was directed to commence the process if drafting the necessary amendments that would modify the Charter from the current City Clerk Administrator form of government to a City Manager form of government. He explained that one method for accomplishing this is to abandon the Charter in entirety, and put in its place a Statutory Plan B form of government, however, in this case, the direction was to work with the existing Charter language and include the City Manager form of government. City Attorney Long advised that this process would require the revision of a number of provisions within the Charter that reference the City Clerk Administrator, however, the primary change, as indicated in the draft ordinance before the Council would begin with the deletion of Chapter 6 of the Charter, which is the Chapter that pertains to the City Clerk Administrator form of government, and replacing it with a new Chapter 6, which is the new City Manager language that legal staff has prepared. He explained that this language was drawn from model Charters that his office has dealt with, one of these being from the city of Albert Lea, which has the City Manager form of government in its Charter. He indicated some cities have simply adopted Statutory Plan B City Manager form of government, and they have no City Charter. He pointed out that Mounds View would be in the hybrid of cities with a Charter that designates a City Manager, if they decide to proceed with this matter. City Attorney Long advised that this matter would not call for a first and second reading as would the adoption of an ordinance, as it would actually be the preparation of language to go on the ballot, therefore, if this is the direction desired, staff could come back before the Council at their next meeting in May, at which time, staff could have the ordinance in complete form, with all of the changes in the Charter that would implement the City Manager form of government. He noted these changes are referenced in the memorandum provided by City Attorney Scott Riggs. He indicated that if the Council desired to proceed with the matter at that point, they could approve the forwarding of the ordinance to the Charter Commission. City Attorney Long advised that under State law, the Charter Commission would initially have 60 days in which to review the Council's proposal, after which time, they could come back with comments, proposals to amend, or request an additional 90 day period for review. He explained that they could not be certain regarding the Charter Commission's response at that point, however, this would set the process in motion for the Charter Commission review. He pointed out that legal staff did not wish to proceed in further detail until they were certain that the Council was comfortable with their interpretation of the direction. He requested the Council discuss this matter, to determine if this was the proper direction. Council Member Marty requested clarification regarding Section 6.04 of the proposal, which • indicates "The other officers of the city are the City Clerk, and the other officers subordinate to the City Manager created by the Council by ordinance or resolution. The clerk is responsible for keeping the city records and under the direction of the Manager, the general administration of the Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 city's affairs." He inquired if this proposal would create another position, or simply a new title • for the Assistant to the City Administrator. City Attorney Long advised that technically, the City currently utilizes the title "City Clerk Administrator," which represents that both functions are designated to the same person. He stated with the City Manager form of government, there would be a City Manager, however, the Council would also designate an individual on the staff to act as the clerk, to handle the record keeping, etc. He explained that they would not necessarily have to create a new position, but could simply designate that title, with a member of the existing staff filling that function. Mayor Coughlin indicated that currently, the Administrator serves as Clerk, and the Deputy Clerk is also the Finance Director, who performs some of the functions of the Clerk. City Attorney Long stated this was correct. He explained that this would not create a new position, and they could simply utilize both the title of City Manager and the title of Clerk. Council Member Marty stated he would like to ensure that this would not require the hiring of additional personnel. City Attorney Long advised that under Chapter 6.01, Subdivision 3, the Manager would appoint the officers and employees, and also hires and fires them, except in the case of the hiring of Department Heads which requires Council approval. He explained that the recommendation is • that if the Council does not approve the appointment within 30 days, the appointment is not approved, which provides the Council with a ratification role with regard to the appointments. He advised that currently, the Council is the appointing authority, and as such, they are responsible for the hiring and firing of all personnel. He stated this would change, and the Council would hire the City Manager, who in turn would be responsible for the hiring of all personnel, with the exception of Department Heads, over which the Council would have some ratification authority. Mayor Coughlin stated it was his understanding that the city of Roseville's Charter Commission was moving toward similar language. City Attorney stated one of the disadvantages of the current system is that the Council, as the appointing authority, is required to become involved in every potential termination, therefore, if a termination matter comes forward, it must be dealt with at the Council level, as opposed to the City Manager level. Council Member Quick pointed out that by eliminating some of the paperwork Council must consider in dealing with all of the decisions they are called upon to make, the workload on everyone would be reduced. He added that there would be no need to hire another employee if there was less work. • Council Member Marty stated this would also assist in the expediency of running the day-to-day operations of the City. Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 Mayor Coughlin stated Council Member Marty's point was well made at the Work Session, in • that a perfect example of this was this entire Highway 10 safety and redevelopment issue. He explained that a tragedy had occurred on Highway 10 which resulted in the death of a young boy, however, Council had to wait two weeks to reconvene to provide staff direction in this regard. He advised that some of this, such as examining the lighting and proposing solutions, should have been done simply as a matter of course, however with no direction, staff was limited in the amount of latitude they had to proceed. He reiterated this was a very good point. Council Member Marty explained that with a City Manager form of government, many of these decisions could have been made immediately, however, under the current form of government, the City Administrator is unable to directly address resident inquires or specific situations, which can result in delaying these matters for several weeks. Mayor Coughlin stated Council Member Stigney had requested a comparative summary of the two forms of government. He requested City Attorney Long provide an overview of the core differences between the City-Manager and City Clerk Administrator forms of government. City Attorney Long stated the fundamental differences are presented in the role of the Council. He stated that currently, under the City Clerk Administrator form of government, the Council has a somewhat mixed set of roles. He explained that the Council is the legislative body for the City, which would also be the case under the City Manager form of government, however, because so many of the Council's duties are administrative in nature, such as acting as the appointing • authority, overseeing all contract decisions, etc., the Council takes more of an administrative role under this form of government. He indicated that m some sense, rt could be argued that more administrative duties are being exercised by the Council than legislative duties, in terms of total time allocated to functions on the Council Agenda. City Attorney Long advised that the City Manager form of government would delegate to the City Manager more of the day-to-day management decisions, such as the hiring and firing, contract decisions up to a certain amount, enforcing the budget, and matters of this nature. He indicated allows the Council to take a more purely legislative, policy-making role. City Attorney Long stated in some of the smaller rural towns in greater Minnesota, where they have the Clerk Administrator form of government, the Council is almost always acting as one and the same, in terms of passing ordinances, and operating the city. He explained that they have seen the Suburban Plan B City Manager form of government unfold, and the two former City Managers seated in the audience could attest to the fact that cities operating under that form of government, such as Bloomington, Coon Rapids, and New Brighton, are very well managed. City Attorney Long stated what these cities are attempting to do is delegate a certain amount of managerial authority to an individual who is hired for the position, as in the case of a corporation which hires a Chief Executive Officer to run the day-to-day affairs, and the Board of Directors controls the overall budget setting, financing, and future goals. He explained that whether or not • there are advantages to the City Manager form of government would depend upon the individual vantage point, however, the common argument is that there are advantages in that it allows for more efficiency, as well as a more professional management of day-to-day operations, and rt Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 frees the Council to perform their truly legislative duties, instead of becoming involved in the • daily operations of the City as called for in the current Charter. Mayor Coughlin inquired if employment was typically considered "at will" or on a "just cause" basis in the City Manager form of government, mindful of all State regulations and requirements pertaining to employment. City Attorney Long stated employees are "at will" in the sense that there are employment contracts with City Managers that allow them to terminate employees without a cause, per se, by due process, however, there are procedural issues and typically some type of provision for severance upon dismissal, and in this sense, employment is considered "at will." He indicated the State of Minnesota sets forth certain procedural rights due any employee, and a City Manager would have that same legal right, however, it would not be subject to the same "for cause" standard that is currently utilized for some City employees. Council Member Stigney stated he had requested information regarding the pros and cons of the two forms of government. He indicated he had heard many advantages, however, no disadvantages, and he would like to have these brought forward as well. He stated the residents of the City voted for the type of government they currently have, and before the Council elects to change that, the residents should be informed regarding what is being proposed, and why. He advised that the residents should be informed as to what is not working, and what could be improved by changing. He added that if the form of government is to be changed, that • information must come forward to the residents in the form of an inquiry, rather than being submitted to the Charter Commission under Chapter 410.12 Subd. 5, because this represents that if the Charter Commission does not approve, the measure would simply go on the ballot as submitted. Council Member Stigney stated the City has a Charter, and the Charter Commission should review the form of government, and has examined Chapter 6. He indicated he is a member of the Charter Commission, and has served on that body for approximately 4 years, however, he has only recently heard of this push to change the City's form of government. He indicated he has not heard any real basis for making a change. He pointed out that the population has not changed in the suburb of Mounds View, nor has their area, and it is very similar to the way it was when the Charter was established in the 1970's. He stated he would like to see some very good reason for changing before the Charter is changed, because it is the constitution by which they work on their City. Council Member Marty stated in the discussion that has taken place, this has simply been presented as a proposal, and it would be submitted to the citizens for a vote. He indicated the current City government has been in place for a very long time, and it is what the citizens desired, however, the Council is attempting to be progressive, and find new means to streamline things, and make them work better. He suggested that previous Councils might not have thought of this possibility, or had considered it and simply did not act. He advised that the Council could • not change the form of government, they could only raise the issue, and it would be up to the citizens to make the final decision. Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 Council Member Stigney stated this matter be submitted to the Charter Commission as a • proposed amendment by the Charter Commission, after their review, as the Charter Commission is the body which has worked in this area for quite some time. He stated the comments he has heard are all subjective in terms of whether or not this proposal would be better for the residents, and from what he has heard in the discussions thus far, it is not to the betterment of the residents, therefore, he had some hesitancy in this regard. Council Member Quick stated he agreed with Council Member Stigney in that the population of Mounds View has not changed significantly since 1978 or 1979, however, the demographics have changed drastically. Mayor Coughlin stated every member of the Council was elected by the citizenry, and if this item was to proceed, it would be on the ballot, and the citizens would ultimately decide whether they like the current form of government, or would like to change it. He advised that without disrespect to the Charter Commission, they are an appointed body, not an elected body, and in being so, they may or may not be true representatives of the City. Council Member Quick inquired who appoints the members of the Charter Commission. Mayor Coughlin advised that the District Court Judge who serves over all of Ramsey County appoints the members of the Commission, and the individuals are selected from those who apply. He added that vacancies on the Charter Commission are not necessarily well publicized. • Council Member Quick stated therefore, they were not appointed by an elected body, group, or individual. Mayor Coughlin stated they were appointed by an outside entity, not necessarily representing Mounds View's interest or population. Council Member Stigney advised that those who are appointed have generally applied for the purpose of preserving and protecting the City Charter for residents' rights. He indicated this was his reason for serving on the Commission, and he was certain the members that he serves with also do so for the same reason. He stated that if the Council directs that this should be the new form of City government, the matter should be submitted to the Charter Commission for their review and recommendation, and not under Chapter 410.12, Subd. 5. He stated he takes exception to the form in which it is being presented. Council Member Quick stated that if the Charter Commission serves to protect the citizens' rights, he would inquire if they have had a televised meeting. Mayor Coughlin stated to his knowledge they have not. Council Member Quick inquired if the Charter Commission has met in City Hall since they were requested to do so. Mayor Coughlin stated no. Council Member Quick stated therefore, it appears that they were meeting offsite to evade the televising of their meetings. Mayor Coughlin stated they have motivations of their own, • however, it appears that this conclusion could be drawn. Mounds View City Council May 8,1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 Council Member Stigney advised that the Charter Commission was scheduled to meet in City • Hall on May 11"', and this was an erroneous statement. Council Member Quick stated it was not erroneous. He indicated there have been three meetings that he is aware of, since the Council requested the Charter Commission to meet at City Hall and be televised, however, he has not seen these meetings on television. Council Member Stigney indicated his response was to the statement that the Charter Commission refuses to be televised, however, they would be televised on May 11`" Council Member Quick stated his point was that they have not been televised to date. Council Member Marty clarified that they have refused to be televised to this point. Council Member Stigney reiterated the meeting would be televised on May 11"' Council Member Quick stated it was his understanding that a previous meeting was held at a private establishment. Council Member Stigney stated the Charter Commission meets where they propose to meet, and their next meeting would be held in City Hall, on May 11 ~''. Council Member Quick inquired if they have special privileges because they are appointed by a Judge and not elected by the people, and therefore, could meet at a liquor establishment / restaurant. He inquired how this served the public good. Council Member Stigney stated the public good is being served by the Charter Commission's efforts to preserve the City Charter. Council Member Quick stated this was a subjective opinion. Mayor Coughlin indicated both Council Members' comments had been noted. Council Member Thomason requested this matter be brought back to the Council, to determine if they desired to direct legal staff to draft a clean version of the ordinance to forward on. She indicated she has worked in management, and had brought this matter forward for investigation, and she was aware that the citizens would be the final authority. She advised that if the citizens do not like the idea, they would inform the Council at the ballot. Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the consensus of the Council to further pursue this matter. Council Members Thomason, Quick, and Marty concurred. Mayor Coughlin stated there was partial consensus to move forward with this item. • Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 Mayor Coughlin suggested, in light of the consideration of language changes, the Council • consider a matter that has been reported on in the press as pertains to Section 2.04 of the Charter, which deals with incompatibility of office for elected officials. He indicated that Item lOG of Council Business, The Adoption of Ordinances 649, 650 and 651, presents a situation wherein the Charter Commission and City Council both vote on an issue, and if there is unanimous agreement, it becomes part of the City Charter. He stated he saw the potential of voting twice on the same measure to be an incompatibility of office, which limits the ability of proper checks and balances. He offered for Council consideration that legal staff be directed to add the language necessary to the appropriate section, to delineate that elected officials shall not serve on any subordinate or other type committee of the City, including the Charter Commission, in order to provide clarification in this regard. Council Member Marty stated he was in agreement with this, and has stated so in the past. Council Members Thomason and Quick agreed. Mayor Coughlin requested the record reflect that Council Member Marty is also a member of the Charter Commission. Mayor Coughlin stated there was partial consensus to proceed in this regard. City Attorney Long stated staff would bring this item back to the Council in the form of a full ordinance at their next meeting, with all of the revisions that are required to be in place, as well as language reflecting the measure referenced by Mayor Coughlin. He advised that the matter would be scheduled for a first reading at that time. Council Member Quick stated discussion had taken place several years earlier with a different Council, and this Council had also lightly touched upon that discussion which pertained to terms of office. He explained that at that time, former Mayor Linke had raised the point that atwo-year Mayoral term was hardly adequate time to make a meaningful statement. He stated he would like the City Attorney to examine a means to amend the term of office for the Mayor and the Council. He indicated he believed there should be afour-year term for the Mayor, and asix-year term for Council Members. He advised that longer terms of office would increase the stability and due diligence of the Council, and this would certainly be beneficial to the community and the individual voter. Mayor Coughlin inquired if legal staff could obtain a survey from the League of Minnesota Cities to provide a sense of the average Council term lengths, and report on this matter. City Attorney Long stated he was not aware of six-year terms of office, however, he was aware that there were two and four-year term differences between Councils. Council Member Quick indicated his primary concern was with regard to the stability of the Council. Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 Mayor Coughlin stated he would agree to have legal staff research this issue and conduct a survey for discussion and informational purposes, if nothing else. Council Member Marty stated he would like to see statistics in this regard. Council Member Stigney stated this would be acceptable if the elected official was properly representing the public, however, if not, and that individual was elected to a four or six-year term, the City would be stuck with them until the electoral process could change that situation. He stated he favored the terms of office as the currently are. Council Member Quick pointed out that the City could recall an elected official. Council Member Stigney stated a recall would only be warranted in a very drastic situation, however, if someone simply did not care for the manner in which an individual was representing them for four to six years, there would be very little they could do about it. Mayor Coughlin commented he has not been particularly pleased with the President of the United States during the past seven and a half years, and he has dealt with this. He explained that this is simply the democratic process in action. Mayor Coughlin stated there was partial consensus of the Council to direct legal staff to conduct research in this regard. City Attorney Long stated staff could provide some statistics for the Council, in terms of average term lengths, and staff would also prepare some draft language that would accomplish four year terms for Mayor and six-year terms for Council Members, so that if they desire to move forward in this process, it could be included with the other changes that are being contemplated. Council Member Marty suggested that rather than tying up legal staff time, the Council could direct Assistant to the City Administrator Reed to contact the League of Minnesota Cities regarding the statistics. City Attorney Long agreed, adding that legal staff would prepare the draft language. C. Highway 10 Study Process. Community Development Director Jopke stated on March 13"', the Council approved a general work plan and allocated funds to have Springsted & Associates facilitate discussions regarding the future of Highway 10. He indicated that as staff has worked with Sprinsted to put some detail to the study process, and they have come to the conclusion that changes to the work plan and process originally proposed may be necessary. He explained that the original work plan focused almost entirely upon community discussions to identity issues and priorities, however, as they have examined all of the previous studies, it has become apparent that there has been considerable community input, and it appears that most, if not all of the issues have been identified at this point, therefore, it might be more appropriate to build upon those studies and • prepare a specific action plan that would focus upon those common elements, and allow them to proceed to the next step of implementing improvements. He indicated a finance plan could also be developed to assist the City in this regard. Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 • Community Development Director Jopke stated staff has discussed this matter with the University of Minnesota Design Center, with regard to the role they might take to assist the City in visualizing the possibilities, as well as how the I-35W Corridor discussion could assist in this matter. He indicated representatives of Springsted were present to discuss the refocused study, adding that staff desired to ensure that the Council was comfortable with this direction prior to proceeding. He provided the Council with a memorandum that described the revisions to the process. Sharon of Springsted & Associates stated the revised process came forward after they had an opportunity to examine a number of the studies that have been done in the past, and to discuss this matter with Community Development Director Jopke to obtain a sense of what might be a means to synthesize all of the good work that has been done on the roadway study over the past two years. She stated they examined the opportunity to break the process into two pieces, so that the process of creating an action plan could be accomplished in two phases. She indicated the first phase would be the coordination of the Steering Committee. She explained that individuals from the Economic Development Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, and individuals from the school have been identified for participation in this committee. Ms. stated one of the first items of importance would be to provide the Steering Committee some of the background that has been done in previous studies to provide them with • a sense of the community input received, and the recommendations that came out of that. She indicated for the most part, the studies are very current, however, several things are occurring that require additional input. She explained that one of these is the affect of the opening of the Interstate 610, as all of the studies were done prior to this, and all of the studies carry a general caveat that it would be important to come back and review the matter after the interstate was opened. She stated they were aware that Highway 10 would be turned back from the State to Ramsey County, and this should be viewed as an opportunity to examine the types of changes they would like to see. She pointed out that with the close proximity of I-35W to Highway 10, the I-35W Corridor Coalition could be of some influence. Ms. stated they would like to develop a matrix, which would lay out a number of the common elements that each plan addresses, and then lay out a list of the recommendations to define the progression of what is occurring. She noted that many of the same themes have been repeated in the studies. She indicated that after they have the opportunity to review that information and discuss an action plan with the Steering Committee, they thought that the second meeting might be a discussion of what opportunities exist, and there was an idea at a previous meeting with staff that they might tour comparable highway projects that have been done, to examine some of the things that are occurring. She stated these would be projects that have taken place over a period of time, therefore, they should provide some insight into the different elements and strategies utilized in the remaking of a corridor. She indicated they would also like to have the involvement of the Design Center, and this, in conjunction with a tour, would heighten the ability to draw upon their resources as well as what other communities have done. • Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 • Ms. advised that at this point, what they would propose to do with the Steering Committee is have them identify some priorities, recognizing that they may wish to proceed with some matters in the first 12 months, some items that could be focused upon during the next year to three years, and some beyond three years. She stated they could work with the Steering Committee to identify those priorities, after which, they would have a check list for the community, and this would be the point where they would propose the third meeting, at which they would sit down with some community members to obtain their feedback on the plan, and determine how it draws upon all of the previous studies and discussion. Ms. indicated that after this point, they would have the Steering Committee's recommendation and the community comments, and this would be the appropriate time to come back before the Council and present this material. She stated the Council could then consider this information and determine if they would like to proceed to the second phase where the outcome would be the development of an action plan that would provide some concrete steps to take, and would also provide the opportunity to consider the costs of the types of improvements that have been suggested and who would be responsible for those improvements. She explained that this would take into consideration the types of financing plans that are available, and the pace that the City would like to take in terms of implementing the plan. Ms. stated many quality recommendations have come forward in the information that has been gathered, and through the review of the reports, she believes there are some exciting possibilities in the manner in which the corridor has been visualized, and what it could represent to the City, in terms of the community. She advised that from a cost standpoint, they would see the first phase as attainable under the initial cost estimate provided for the original work plan. She explained that in the event additional meetings become required, they would estimate they would be charged at a rate of $600 per meeting. She indicated that if they could hold this process to three meetings, this would represent a "not to exceed" cost of $5,000. Mayor Coughlin inquired if this estimate would cover the costs of Springsted's presentation to the Council and a public review of the findings, after the third meeting. Ms. stated this might constitute a fourth meeting, however, the manner in which they have laid out the proposal appears to address this consideration, and she believed it would be included. She indicated that with the second phase of the proposal; the action plan, based upon similar work they have done in the past, they believe a general estimate would be approximately $5,000 to $7,000. She stated there were many opportunities to review the proposed plan and determine if there were aspects of that process that City staff could undertake. She pointed out that they might wish to involve the City Engineer to identify the costs of certain improvements, if those costs have not already been identified in the City's current Capital Improvement Plan. She explained that where there is existing data, and everyone is confident with that data, they would not wish to reiterate that work, however, if issues come forward, which require examination of the cost projections, this would only serve to make the action plan more accurate. • Bob Thistle of Springsted & Associates indicated that as they went through the materials, they found there was a wealth of information in terms of well-written reports, including staff reports and the previous studies that have been conducted. He stated that in the sequential review, that Mounds View City Council May 8,1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 data is available for utilization, and they believe this would be a good point from which to • commence. He pointed out that the issues become somewhat subjective as they are examined, therefore, they would like to keep the proposal as flexible as possible. He indicated there were some items the Council might desire City staff to do, noting that the City has a very competent finance staff, which could assist in the preparation of these plans. He explained that they could mix and match these duties as they proceed. Mayor Coughlin stated Sprinsted comes very highly recommended by former City Administrator Chuck Whiting, because they are public finance advisors, therefore, once the City determines what they desire to do, this would be a seamless process, with the assistance of the City's own internal staff, in terms of having a very clear estimate of the costs and options. Ms. Thistle advised that after the Council has a sense of the direction in which they would like to proceed, the three components would be related to the costs, the timing, and how aggressive they would like to be. He explained that the roadway would be present for many years, and in light of this, the process could be manipulated to determine the impact to the tax base, in terms of what they would consider to be a reasonable burden, and this could be peppered on the community. Council Member Marty stated he would like this process to commence. He indicated he was under the impression that the first meeting would be held within the next few days, and this proposal represented a new direction. He pointed out that children were continuing to run across Highway 10, and he did not wish to belabor the matter with discussion. He indicated a number • of studies have been done in the past, as Springsted has uncovered and explained, however, they have not been acted upon. He stated he would like to have this matter proceed correctly, and as soon as possible. Mr. Thistle stated it was apparent through reviewing the material that the information was present, and the matter to be determined was how to move it forward. Mayor Coughlin stated in his understanding, the first meeting as proposed in the original draft was to be for the purpose of reviewing all of the previous studies and discussions, and this has been done internally, therefore, the matters is proceeding. He indicated Sprinsted has saved time in this process, and at this point, they could move forward rather than repeat the same discussions. Mr. Thistle pointed out that at this point, asking people their opinions regarding what must be done would basically be redoing what has already been done in the past. Mayor Coughlin added that this would be a waste of effort and City resources. Council Member Marty advised that the first meeting should be scheduled. Mayor Coughlin stated this would simply involve the coordination of the Steering Committee, staff, and Springsted, and he would leave this matter for those bodies to determine. He stated the • involvement of the Design Center in that meeting would be very appropriate, given that they are working very closely with the I-35W Corridor Coalition, of which he is a Board Member, and they have already addressed some of these issues, and have flagged Highway 10 as a significant Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 • redevelopment opportunity. He advised that at some level, the City should probably view this as an opportunity to seize the moment and do something positive with Highway 10, not only in terms of safety, but also for further development. Community Development Director Jopke stated he has discussed the matter with the Design Center, and they have expressed excitement at the opportunity to assist the City in this regard. He indicated they have requested the City consider helping to fund a graduate student, to assist them in this effort. Mayor Coughlin stated he concurred with Council Member Marty, in that the sooner they can proceed, the better. He inquired if staff was requesting Council action at this time. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff was attempting to determine if the Council was in agreement, and if there was a general consensus regarding the new process that has been outlined. Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to proceed in this direction. D. Taking Action on the Request of 8438 Groveland Road, Appealing Denial of a Variance Request by Mounds View Planning Commission. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the Council Work Session on May 1, 2000, the property • owner of 8438 Groveland Road was before the Council to express her desire to have the Planning Commission's denial of her variance requested overturned by the Council. He indicated some discussion was held regarding her significant hardship, and there was much discussion regarding the possible means that could be utilized to address her situation. He explained that one of the options proposed was to draft an emergency ordinance to allow her request for an 8-foot fence to be erected, and this was pulled off of the agenda for further discussion with the City's legal staff, in order to put this matter in proper legal form. Planning Associate Ericson stated the item before the Council at this time is the initial request of the property owner to have the Council act upon her appeal. He stated the issue, in terms of what the property owner is presenting to the City Council, is that she is of the opinion that she is experiencing a significant hardship that would warrant the overturning of the Planning Commission denial of her request. He explained that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, was required to take a very narrow focus, in terms of interpreting the definition of a hardship. He advised that they examined the Code, and addressed the issue in terms of how the property impacts the property owner, and in what respect the topography and configuration of the lot limits her ability to utilize her property in the same manner as any other property owner. He explained that in this regard, the Planning Commission chose to deny the variance request, however, the City Council has the opportunity and the discretion to determine a different interpretation of a hardship. . Planning Associate Ericson advised that in order to overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the variance request, a hardship would still be required, and the property owner is requesting that the Council consider her situation, and act in her favor to overturn that denial. He stated the Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 City Attorney has discussed this matter with staff, and may have some information to offer in • terms of whether or not this should be done, and if so, how the Council should proceed. City Attorney Long advised that when the Council is sitting as a body in consideration of an appeal, the question of what constitutes a hardship is somewhat of a matter of interpretation for the Council to determine at its discretion. He indicated that if they find that the particular facts before them constitute a hardship to the property if a variance is not granted, it is within the Council's authority to make a different interpretation than that of the Planning Commission, and this would not be extremely uncommon. He explained that the Planning Commission must make a very strict interpretation from a land use standpoint, however, the Council has greater policy latitude, and they have the opportunity to examine the matter on a case-by-case basis. City Attorney Long advised that under the City Code for granting a variance, the Council is charged with making several findings. He explained that one of the criteria for these findings is whether or not there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to this particular property that do not generally apply to other properties. He indicated other criteria relate to the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Title, in terms of whether this would deprive the property owner of the rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the area. He explained that the need for the variance must not result from the actions of the property owner, and that granting the variance would not bestow upon the property owner special privileges. He advised that the variance request must be the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship, it must not be due to economic conditions alone, and that it shall not impair the adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. Furthermore, the variance must not be materially detrimental to the Chapter of the Title. City Attorney Long advised that if the Council makes all of these findings, they could grant the variance to the applicant, and if they chose to proceed in this manner, he would recommend that the Council make those findings, which would become part of the record, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for formal action at the next meeting, and also move to approve the issuance of permits based upon the findings in the motion to approve the variance. He explained that through this process, the Council would be granting the appeal, as well as the variance request. Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was within the purview of the Council to define the hardship. City Attorney Long stated this was correct. He pointed out that occasionally situations will come forward wherein one property owner requests a higher level of screening or buffering on their property to provide a greater screening from a visual perspective or otherwise, from. a neighboring property. He explained that this sometimes occurs when there is a change in use or activity on a neighboring property that requires one property owner to seek a variance for a higher level of screening, in closer proximity to the property line. He pointed out that in this situation, there may be some change in the use or activity on the neighboring property that has resulted in this property owner's request for a taller fence. • Mayor Coughlin stated he would offer as a motion that the Council finds that the situations testified to at the Council Work Session, in conjunction with the staff reports and the Police reports that were involved in this matter, this situation rises to the level required for a variance, Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 22 • and that furthermore, the City Administrator and the Mayor be allowed to enter into the final execution of this document, in order to move forward in this process, with regard to building permits and items of this nature, and allow for the fence without delay. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Thomason. The Council Finds that based upon the Standards Testified to at the Council Work Session, in conjunction with the Staff Reports and the Police Reports Involved in this Matter, this Situation Rises to the Level Required for a Variance, Furthermore, the City Administrator and the Mayor be Allowed to Enter into the Final Execution of this Document, and to Execute all Necessary Documents Pertaining to Building Permits and Items of this Nature, In Order to Move Forward in this Process and Allow for the Fence without Delay, and Based Upon the Facts and the Presentation, the Council Finds That a Hardship Exists, and Based Upon Those Findings, the Council would Grant the Appeal, and Furthermore, the Homeowner Shall Act in Good Faith Upon the Measure Passed, and that Staff be Directed to Prepare a Resolution in this Regard. Council Member Marty indicated that during the previous Work Session discussion, the possibility of having the Police Chief address the situation in a different manner had come forward. He inquired if it would be possible to allow the fence as a temporary structure, and to incorporate some rapidly growing shrubs as a more permanent means to resolve this situation. Mayor Coughlin advised that due to the relative permanence of a fence, it should probably be viewed as a permanent entity. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He advised that the request before the Council was not the consideration of an interim use permit or and conditional use permit, but rather, the granting of the variance to allow for the fence. He explained that at some point in the future, staff would likely come back before the Council with an ordinance that would allow for a different forms of redress for property owners through the conditional or interim use permit, however, that is not the case at this point, due to the timing of this matter. Council Member Marty inquired what would occur if one or both of these property owners were to move in the future, and the 8-foot fence was still present. Planning Associate Ericson stated the property owner might desire to remove the fence. Council Member Quick advised that the fence would be the property of the owner of the property upon which it is located, and it would be up to that individual to determine what to do with the fence. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Code requires that fences be constructed no closer than one-foot from the property line. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Code simply indicates that a fence may not be constructed upon the property line. Council Member Stigney stated this property owner has certainly demonstrated her need for privacy, and it is evident that she has experienced some problems. He stated he would be • pleased to grant her request for a fence, at least on an interim basis. He explained that if the fence were permitted because of the specific conditions that exists, and those conditions should cease, he would not see a need for maintaining that type of deviation from the Code. He Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 23 • suggested the Council stipulate that the matter be reevaluated at such time as the situation changes. Council Member Stigney indicated the necessity for proceeding with this matter has been documented to be the result of problems with a neighboring property. He advised that there are currently no administrative penalties for all of the Police calls that have been made to this property. He indicated that in attempts to resolve the issue through the courts, it might not be viewed as a significant problem, in light of all of the other very serious crimes that occur. He advised that Mounds View should establish some form of administrative policy as a penalty action for repeated calls to the same location for the purpose of dealing with the same types of problems. He explained that this would assist to address such problems in the future, in terms of generating administrative penalties for repeated calls.. Mayor Coughlin stated this was a good point, and although not necessarily germane to the motion, it would be in order to request the consent of the Council to direct staff to research this, after the Council deals with the motion on the Floor. Council Member Quick requested City Attorney Long advise regarding this matter. City Attorney Long advised that with regard to the first portion of Council Member Stigney's statement, a time restriction could not be placed on a variance, and it runs with the land. He indicated that if a variance were granted at this time, this would be the case, however, if the • current or future property owner decided they did not desire the fence, they could remove it. He advised that a time restriction could be attached to an interim use, however, conditional use permits and variances were not subject to specific time frames. Council Member Quick stated there were previous discussions in Council Chambers regarding fire and burglar alarm calls, and consideration of imposing a surcharge for calls in excess of a specific number. He indicated at that time, it had come forward that this had been determined to be unconstitutional. City Attorney Long stated the City could charge for some calls. Council Member Quick indicated he was referring to penalties for excessive calls, which, in his understanding, rests with the courts. Council Member Thomason moved the question. Aye - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Quick requested the motion be restated. Mayor Coughlin stated the findings are that this particular situation rises to level that allows for the granting of a variance. • Mounds View City Council May 8,1999 Regular Meeting Page 24 City Attorney Long advised that the motion should also indicate that based upon the facts and the presentation, the Council finds that there is a hardship involved and that based upon those findings, the Council would grant the appeal. Mayor Coughlin stated furthermore, the motion would allow for the homeowner in question to act in good faith upon the measure that would be passed, and allow the Mayor and the City Administrator execute all necessary documents. City Attorney Long added that the motion should indicate that the Council would direct staff to prepare a resolution. Council Member Quick stated it has been his experience that when the issues become complicated, they should be restated to provide clarification. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin inquired if Council Member Stigney would like to ask consent of the Council to direct staff to explore administrative fees and fines. Council Member Stigney stated he would. He added that a resident had brought to his attention the possibility that the city of St. Paul had such an ordinance in effect. He indicated staff might wish to contact the city of St. Paul to determine their policy in this regard. • The Council agreed. Mayor Coughlin stated it was the unanimous consensus of the Council to direct staff to proceed in this regard. E. Consideration of Full Time Custodial / Maintenance Position for the Community Center. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated the Council discussed this item at their Work Sessions, and the Council Retreat for goal setting. He indicated that based upon that discussion, staff is seeking direction regarding the advertising and hiring of a full time Custodial/Maintenance position. He stated the five-step pay plan has been outlined in the staff report, and the job description has been submitted to Labor Relations, and it is currently the same point value as the current custodial service. Interim Administrator Ulrich advised that this position would be responsible for the maintenance of the Community Center facility and grounds, as well as the custodial services that could be performed during the day. He indicated a contractor would also be required for weekend services, and as presented earlier, funding was available for that service, as well as the full-time position, at Step 1 of the pay scale. • Mayor Coughlin stated this proposal falls well within the present budgeted parameters. Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 25 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Staff s Recommendation to Proceed with the Advertising and Hiring of a Full Time Custodial /Maintenance Position, and to Authorize Staff to Hire a Contract Custodial Service for the Weekends. Council Member Stigney stated he would favor contracting apart-time, on call position, on an "as needed" basis, as opposed to hiring afull-time position. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin requested clarification regarding the weekend services for the Police Department and City Hall in general. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated the City currently employs apart-time custodial position that would now be responsible for City Hall and the Police Department. He noted that position would be advertised and open to the public, however, this was a separate matter. Mayor Coughlin inquired in light of the attempts to make these positions more official, if there would be any merit in granting staff the latitude to explore the possibility of examining where they are at with the other custodial services. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated staff could do this. He pointed out that approximately a month ago, during the preparation for this item, staff had walked through both the Community Center and City Hall with a contract service, and requested they provide a bid for budgetary informational purposes. He indicated that service had also bid the contract, prior to the hiring of the part-time custodial position for City Hall and the Police Department. Mayor Coughlin stated at a Work Session approximately a year ago, the Council directed staff to obtain estimates from a variety of different custodial services, and that has fallen by the wayside. He requested the consent of the Council to direct staff to examine this matter, to determine if the needs of City Hall and the Police Department are met, in terms of maintaining the building as best as possible. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Direct Staff to Obtain Estimates from a Variety of Custodial Services, and Evaluate the Current Situation, to Determine if the Maintenance Requirements of City Hall and the Police Department are being Met. Council Member Stigney inquired if the direction was to look for contracted services. Mayor Coughlin stated it was to evaluate the situation, and bring the appropriate recommendations forward to the Council. He indicated that at that point, it would be up to the Council to approve or deny the presented options. Council Member Stigney stated he had no problem with regard to examining the matter, however, he did have a problem with regard to hiring additional City employees. • Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 26 Council Member Marty stated former Administrator Whiting had investigated this matter, • however, in his recollection, there were very few applicants, and therefore, the hiring proceeded from the options available. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. F. League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference: Registration and Housing Information. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated this item was to serve as a reminder that Council Members must register for the League of Minnesota Cities Conference soon, if they desire to be housed in the same building. She explained that dependent upon the time of registration, the Council Members might be housed in a different building, which would necessitate some traveling. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed advised that the theme of the conference is "Building Quality Communities," and it would include a number of topics relevant to local government. She indicated the conference would be held in St. Cloud, from June 13"' through June 16`h Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated the early bird deadline for registration was June 2°d, however, staff would like to provide the information prior to that date, to ensure that the Council Members obtain the standard of housing they desire. She requested the Council • Members advise staff regarding their plans by the following Friday. G. Second Reading and Readoption of Ordinances 649, 560 and 651 to Amend the City of Mounds View Charter. City Attorney Long stated at the previous Council Meeting, Ordinances 649, 650, and 651 were adopted, however, only four members of the Council were present at that time, and there was some question in the Statutes regarding whether or not an affirmative vote is required. He stated the wording "affirmative vote of all the members" has been interpreted differently by different entities in the past, therefore, staff recommends the ordinances be readopted with all Council Members present. He advised that the ordinances before the Council at this time were exactly the same as those presented at the City Council Meeting on April 5"'. He indicated they would each require a separate motion and roll call vote. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 649, an Ordinance Amending Charter Section 3.04, Subd. 1, Adoption of Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions. ROLL CALL: Thomason, Stigney, Marty, Quick, Coughlin. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 650, an Ordinance Amending Charter Section 5.05 as to the Initiative Process and Resolutions Proposed in the City. • Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting May 8, 1999 Page 27 ROLL CALL: Stigney, Thomason, Coughlin, Quick, Marty Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Marty. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 651, an Ordinance Amending Section 5.07 of the Charter Regarding Referendum Process and Resolutions Adopted. ROLL CALL: Quick, Stigney, Marty, Coughlin, Thomason Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • Mayor Coughlin requested the record reflect that all three of these ordinances were adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. 11. Next Special Work Session: Monday, May 15, 2000 - 6:00 P.M. Mayor Coughlin stated the DARE Graduation would be held concurrently to the Special Work Session, and the Council may recess to attend this event, as he and the Police Chief have been requested to address the graduates. He indicated the Special Work Session has been posted as a public meeting at the Community Center as well, and he would encourage members of Council and any community members who would like to share in this graduation event to attend. Next Council Work Session: Monday, June 5, 2000 - 6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 22, 2000 - 7:00 P.M. • 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Trish Pearson Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.