Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2000/08/14,- PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting a ~ ~a~'i ~ ~ ~ '~°~° gy'm' August 14, 2000 ~~ h ~4 ~~> ~, ~ '~ ., ~}.,,,~ ;~ '~ ~~"" Mounds View City Hall ~, ~ ~ ~°°• 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 _. _ 7:02 P.M. 1. ~ MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER • • 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, August 14, 2000, City Council Agenda. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To accept the August 14, 2000, City Council Agenda as presented, dispensing with the reading of all ordinances and resolutions unless otherwise requested. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, July 24, 2000, City Council Minutes. Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 2, 6th paragraphs, correct "Mounds View Mattes" to "Mounds View Matters." Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 3, first sentence, to change the words "City's elected officials" to "other elected officials." MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To approve the July 24, 2000, City Council minutes as corrected. Ayes - 5 5. Nays - 0 Motion carried. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 l~ u 6. REPORTS Council Member Stigney commented on his attendance at the National Night Out events and appreciation for resident's interest in that event. With regard to noise and low-flying aircraft complaints on the Anoka County Airport, Council Member Stigney requested residents call Jack Eberlein of MAC Operations at 612-726-5111. He advised that the control tower does not log any complaints. Mayor Coughlin stated it is actually a federal offense to interfere with the operations of the control tower so multiple telephone calls to the control tower could result in a problem. He stated the normal complaint number to call is 612-726-9411 and advised that telephone calls made to that telephone number are tracked and logged. Council Member Stigney noted that Mr. Eberlein also would like to be called with complaints and indicated he would log them as well. Council Member Marty thanked the Police and Fire Departments for their participation at the National Night Out events. He commented on the block party in his neighborhood, which was the first one held, and visitors that attended. Council Member Marty reported on his attendance at a Cable Commission meeting and budget discussions held. He advised they discussed a desire to roll what is not spent into next year's budget. Council Member Marty stated they also talked about cablecasting other City Council meetings on Sundays. He advised that option is not yet decided and will be further discussed. He stated there has been interest in the Springsted Highway 10 study but, at the last work session, the Mayor had mentioned that Highway 10 ticketing was up 25%. Mayor Coughlin stated that is correct, ticketing and other traffic stops are up 25%. Council Member Quick had no report. Council Member Thomason had no report. Mayor Coughlin thanked all who were involved in the 18 group and block parties and stated his appreciation to DARE Officer Tim Brennon who was the main contact for all the block parties. He also stated his thanks to the Mounds View Lions Club who donated ice cream to many block parties, commenting it was very poplar with both kids and "kids at heart" like himself. Acting City Administrator Ulrich reported that the Rice Creek Watershed Director has estimated it would be two months before a preliminary plan for Rice Creek Ponds is available for review. Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 • Mayor Coughlin stated at the last meeting the Council approved on-going communication between staff and residents and when the time comes to share that information, every effort will be made to communicate it to the residents along with one or more informational meetings. He stated the Council wants to assure all concerns and questions are dealt with in an informal manner prior to formal Council consideration. Assistant City Attorney Vose commented on his work with Mounds View during the City Attorney's absence and stated his appreciation of City Staff. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval 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 and B as presented. i Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Coughlin reported that the Highway 10 issue will be discussed this evening as the last agenda item. There were no requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of the following: 1. Resolution 5462, a Resolution Approving the Walgreens PUD and Exchange of Real Property for and with TOLD Development Company. 2. Resolution 5453, a Resolution A rovin the Wetland Alteration Pp g Permit and Development Review of the Proposed Walgreens PUD. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting August 14, 2000 Page 4 3. Resolution 5454, a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat of the Proposed Walgreens Major Subdivision. 4. First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 665, an Ordinance Rezoning Properties Associated with the Walgreens Development from B-3 and PF to PUD. 5. First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 666, an Ordinance Vacating the Old Edgewood Drive Right of Way Included within the Proposed Walgreens PUD. 6. First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 669, an Ordinance Authorizing Disposing by Sale of City-Owned Real Property. Mayor Coughlin opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson explained that TOLD Development Company, represented by Mr. Bob Cunningham, is requesting approval of a planned unit development and major subdivision to construct a Walgreens Drugstore and restaurant at the corner of Edgewood Drive and County Highway 10. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this request and all associated actions at their meeting on July 19, 2000. Planning Associate Ericson explained that because of the complexity of this request, staff provided a breakdown of the number of actions required for Council consideration as follows: • Approval of the PUD and Exchange of Land (Res. 5462) • Approval of the Development Review and Wetland Alteration Permit (Res. 5453) • Approval of the Preliminary Plat for the proposed Major Subdivision (Res. 5454) • Authorization to Rezone the Properties (Ord. 665) • Authorization to Vacate Unneeded Edgewood Drive Right of Way (Ord. 666) • Authorization to Dispose by Sale of City-Owned Real property (Ord. 669) Planning Associate Ericson explained that one other action relative to this request will be forthcoming at the Council's next meeting, that being an ordinance to vacate aCity-controlled sign easement where the former alignment of Edgewood Drive intersected with Highway 10. This particular sign easement is not the easement for the existing billboard but, rather, for where the old Bel Rae Ballroom sign was located. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Resolution 5462 approves the PUD and the proposed exchange of land between the City and TOLD Development. Prior to the meeting tonight, the Council received the corrected PUD Document and the Contract for Private Development . relating to this development, both of which shall act as the governing documents for this planned unit development. This resolution also directs staff to present an ordinance to rezone the property and an ordinance to dispose of by sale the remnant parcel. Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Planning Associate Ericson explained that Resolution 5453 approves the development review stage of the PUD and the wetland alteration permit. The resolution contains a number of stipulations which will need to be met concerning revisions to the site plans. The corrections have been agreed upon by the developer yet were not included in the latest plan submission. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) will need to approve the wetland alteration and grading and drainage plans, as well as any other applicable permitting agency as determined by RCWD. He advised that preliminary comments from RCWD are very positive. Regarding the City approval of the wetland alteration, the Municipal Code states that, "A minimum alteration of a wetland may be allowed when necessary for the use of property but only when it will not have a substantially or significantly adverse effect, as determined by the City, upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland." Staff asserts that given the minimal area proposed to be filled and disturbed, and the addition of the regional stormwater pond to treat and filter runoff, this condition is met. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Resolution 5454 approves the preliminary plat of the proposed major subdivision subject to stipulations directing the developer to make some minor revisions. He explained how the lots would be configured and need for a plat to create that remnant lot. Planning Associate Ericson noted that 66 feet of property would be added to the Community Center lot and the plat cleans up some inconsistencies. Related to the preliminary plat is Ordinances 666, vacating the old Edgewood Drive right-of--way, and Ordinance 668, an ordinance vacating a sign easement which no longer serves a public purpose. Ordinance 668 will not be before the Council for action until the August 28, 2000 meeting. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Resolution 5454 also stipulates that the developer shall make a park dedication payment pursuant to Section 1202.04 of the Municipal Code. The valuation used for this project is $3.81 per square foot, based on the appraisal performed by Appraisal Concepts, Inc., dated June 30, 2000. Because the Walgreens project area to be developed comprises 116,875 square feet, the total dedication required would be $44,529. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Ordinance 665 is the vehicle by which the affected properties are formally rezoned. The area to be developed, as well as the undeveloped Outlot A that the City will acquire, will be rezoned to PUD from PF and B-3. The Community Center and the 66-foot strip of land east of the Community Center will be rezoned from B-3 to PF. This is a first reading; second reading and adoption shall be scheduled for August 28, 2000. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Ordinance 666 is drafted to vacate the old alignment of Edgewood Drive. The basis for approving any vacation is that the Council shall determine that the public purpose, need or benefit of the area no longer exists, or that the public purpose and interest would be better served by the vacation. The ordinance states that the City has determined that the area no longer serves a public purpose and it is in the public interest to approve the vacation. This is a first reading; second reading and adoption shall be scheduled for August 28, 2000. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Ordinance 669 is drafted to meet the requirements of the City Charter which states in Section 12.05 that any disposal of City-owned land shall be done Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 only by ordinance. The ordinance indicates that the City has determined that such conveyance will further the public interest. This is a first reading; second reading and adoption shall be scheduled for August 28, 2000. Mayor Coughlin asked for public input at this time. There being none, the public hearing was closed at 7:26 p.m. Bob Cunningham, representing TOLD Development, requested Council consideration of Item 20 as contained in Resolution 5462 which contemplates the park dedication fees. He noted staff's calculation of 10% of $445,000 would be equal a park dedication fee of $44,500. He respectfully requested that the Council waive this park dedication fees. Mr. Cunningham explained that over time in negotiating with City Staff, they have agreed to additional costs beyond normal development, the first of which was the inclusion of a trail to which they do not protest. That totals 1,800 lineal feet of trail both on and off their property at an estimated cost of $36,000 to $45,000. In addition, they have also agreed to pay the increased cost of the regional storm water detention pond. He presented a diagram identifying the delineation of the storm water pond needed for their project, and that of a regional storm water pond. He stated the cost for this enlarged pond, the trail, and park dedication equals approximately $150,000 of additional costs to get the development approved by the City. Mr. Cunningham stated that is why he would like to respectfully request the Council to waive the park dedication fees. He stated TOLD Development is also bearing the cost of the plat including Bronson, creating separate lots for the Community Center, and the 66 feet for the Community Center lot, which is also a substantial cost. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated this is a significant request and he is disappointed it was not raised at the beginning of the public hearing process so comment could have been made. Mayor Coughlin reopened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Mr. McCarty stated the park dedication fee is a very important part of the City's business and, if forgiven, he would suggest it be done on atrade-for-trade fair trade basis. He stated his impression that other developers have been willing to provide a trail with PUD developments and encouraged the Council to not establish a precedent. William Kuether, 5302 St. Stephens Street, asked what he would have to do to "kill" this plan. He stated he moved in a year ago and four other residents of St. Stephens Street have lived there less than one year. City Attorney Vose informed Mr. Kuether that offering public hearing input that he does not like the plan is the first step to take. City Attorney Vose advised that he is not able to give other legal advice to the public. Mr. Kuether asked if there is any hope of stopping this project. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting August 14, 2000 Page 7 Mayor Coughlin explained this is the first Council meeting where official action has been considered on this project. Mr. Kuether stated he had asked the City Planner if the City could install shrubs to block the view of Highway 10 from St. Stephens Street but it was indicated there was no money in the budget. He asked why the Council would consider waiving $400,000 in park dedication fees if the City had no money in the budget for screening. Planning Associate Ericson stated a request for plantings was received and forwarded to the Public Works Director and City Forester asking what would work in that situation. Acting City Manager Ulrich stated he forwarded the request to the City Forester and the City Forester tried numerous times to contact the resident via e-mail, telephone, and stopped by on several occasions. He stated his impression that information was given as to Mr. Kuether as to what could be planted. Mr. Kuether stated he was told there was no City money for these plantings. Acting City Manager Ulrich stated there are no City funds for boulevard screening between the right-of--way and St. Stephens Street. Council Member Quick asked where the screening is being requested. Mr. Kuether explained that St. Stephens Street begins by the Network Liquor parking lot and his suggestion was to buy bushes, shrubs, or trees to seclude his neighborhood from Highway 10 but he was told there was no money in the budget for such plantings. Council Member Quick asked if the request was to use City funds for these plantings. Mr. Kuether stated that is correct and he was told there was no money in the budget but now a request is being made to waive payment of a large fee. Mayor Coughlin stated the issue of shrubs is a bit "far of field" from the Walgreens request but he would Like staff to talk with Mr. Kuether to see if anything can be done to follow up with that suggestion. Council Member Stigney stated the question was raised by Mr. Kuether about what he could do to stop the project. He reviewed the items on the agenda were for resolutions to approve the PUD and exchange of real property with TOLD Development Company, approving the wetland alteration permit and development review of the proposed Walgreens PUD, approving the preliminary plat of the proposed Walgreens subdivision, and giving first reading of ordinances to rezone, vacate the old Edgewood Drive right-of--way, and authorizing disposing by sale of city- owned property. Council Member Stigney explained that after adoption, residents have 60 days to petition against an ordinance by obtaining the required number of signatures. He suggested Mr. Kuether contact City staff to obtain that information. Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Council Member Marty asked Mr. Kuether why he does not want the Walgreens store in that location. Mr. Kuether stated he is a first-time homeowner and enjoys the seclusion of the large trees so he objects to the idea of having a Walgreens when there is another Walgreens located five miles down the road. He noted there is also a Snyder Drug Store in the strip mall. With regard to a proposed restaurant, Mr. Kuether noted there are other restaurants in the area. Council Member Marty noted that a significant buffer will remain with the trees and wetland. Council Member Quick commented that the location of another Walgreens is not a consideration of the City Council. Mr. Kuether stated his impression that a new Walgreens may impact the existing Snyder Drug. Mayor Coughlin explained that property owners have certain rights to build on their property and what is built is their determination, not the determination of the Council. He noted there will be .9 acres of wetland which the Council can designate, into perpetuity, to a particular use such as passive open space. Mr. Kuether stated he grew up by Apache Plaza and is concerned about the impact of these new . stores on the current strip mall. Mayor Coughlin stated those comments have been noted. Mr. McCarty stated the point he wanted to make is that the developer's request, at first blush, seemed reasonable but the ordinance requiring park dedication fees must be protected as well as the precedent of obtaining trailways through the City which has been accepted by most developers. He encouraged the Council to take into consideration the entire City when making a decision and stated his impression the City can take at least five acres which would afford the City to do some things with the Community Center and community at large. Mr. McCarty stated it takes a lot of study, review of staff reports, and time spent with the developer to make that decision. Mayor Coughlin closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Council Member Stigney corrected that it is not the Wedgewood Community Center but the Mounds View Community Center and not Wedgewood Drive but Edgewood Drive. Planning Associate Ericson stated that correction has been noted. Council Member Stigney referred to Resolution 5453 and the requirement for a sidewalk along • Edgewood Drive. He asked if it will be concrete. Planning Associate Ericson answered affirmatively. Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 i Council Member Stigney noted the mention of two decorative lights and an additional three lights. He asked if the decorative lights will be of the type already used along the trailway. Planning Associate Ericson answered affirmatively. Council Member Marty asked when this is due to come before the Rice Creek Watershed District. Planning Associate Ericson advised the District has already received the preliminary plans and begun review. He stated his understanding that the developer wanted to make sure the drainage and storm water plan had been approved by the City prior to presenting the final plans to the Rice Creek Watershed District for final approval. Planning Associate Ericson stated, at this point, staff believes the configuration and location of the storm water pond will be revised somewhat prior to Rice Creek Watershed District consideration. Council Member Marty asked to be notified of the date it will be considered by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mayor Coughlin asked what the timeline is for construction of these two buildings. Mr. Cunningham stated they will commence construction of the Walgreens building as soon as all approvals are in place, including the Rice Creek Watershed District and recording of the plat. He estimated that will be late September. He explained that negotiating the Culver's Restaurant has become a longer process due to their process for finding a qualified franchisee. He estimated that construction will occur in late spring. Mayor Coughlin asked if there is a way to require timelines to assure the restaurant pad is occupied within a certain time frame. Planning Associate Ericson stated a clause can be included, noting construction can be phased with a stipulation that within 30 days after final City approval and execution of the contract, the developer must obtain a building permit for the f rst phase. However, there is no requirement on when the second phase must be started but, perhaps, that language could be added. Planning Associate Ericson noted the consideration tonight is only for the Walgreens site. Council Member Marty stated his support to include that language to ensure a Culver's Restaurant or some type of restaurant is constructed. Planning Associate Ericson noted if the marketplace changes and the developer cannot get a restaurant, he would be concerned about the requirement to construct something within a given time frame. Mayor Coughlin suggested the term "reasonable amount of time" be included in the clause. He stated the Council knows that negotiating such a development can take time. Planning Associate Ericson noted some final input that is needed with the development agreement and stated the finalized document can be brought before the Mayor and/or Council, or the Council could so direct staff to finalize the document. Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Council Member Stigney stated he is concerned that the Walgreens will be part of the corporation or a subentity of Walgreens. He asked if a bankruptcy should occur, would it be against the Walgreens Corporation or just this Walgreens location. Mr. Cunningham stated the building will be owned by an entity of TOLD Development with a lease agreement between TOLD Development and Walgreens. Council Member Stigney asked what guarantee TOLD Development can provide if things do not go as planned in several years. Mr. Cunningham explained they will just build the building and Walgreens will operate the business. He stated they will have a 20-year lease with Walgreens Corporation plus lease extensions well into the future. Planning Associate Ericson stated the contract for private development includes language to give further assurance of what will happen by placing restrictive covenants so certain types of businesses cannot locate there which would provide further protection regarding uses. Mayor Coughlin asked which resolution relates to the park dedication issue and request for waiver. Planning Associate Ericson stated it is referenced in Resolution 5454. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5462, a Resolution Approving the Walgreens PUD and Exchange of Real Property for and with TOLD Development Company. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5453, a Resolution Approving the Wetland Alteration Permit and Development Review of the Proposed Walgreens PUD. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5454, a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat of the Proposed Walgreens Major Subdivision. Mayor Coughlin noted there has been a request by the developer to waive the park dedication fee. He entertained amendments to the motion on the floor. Council Members Quick and Marty indicated an unwillingness to consider such an amendment to the motion on the floor. Ma or Cou hlin stated he can full a reciate the issues resented b Mr. Cunnin ham relating Y g Y PP p Y g to the request to waive the park dedication fee. However, there are other projects coming before the Council and recently considered by the Council that have had to pay these park dedication Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 i fees. Rather than opening "Pandora's Box" he stated a reluctance to change the direction and established policy of the City for park dedication fees. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Introduce First Reading of Ordinance 665, an Ordinance Rezoning Properties Associated with the Walgreens Development from B-3 and PF to PUD. Mayor Coughlin asked if a roll call vote is in order. Assistant City Attorney Vose stated it is since a 4/Sths vote is required for adoption. In response to Council Member Quick's request, Planning Associate Ericson named the many types of uses and businesses that are allowed in a B-3 zoning district. Council Member Quick asked if using a PUD process would scope down the uses to this specific use. Planning Associate Ericson stated that is correct. Council Member Stigney noted the Charter requires a 3/Sths vote and asked if a 4/Sths vote is per Code. Mayor Coughlin stated that a 4/5 vote is required based on State Statutes. Assistant City Attorney Vose stated legal effectiveness is rendered at second reading but it would not hurt to conduct a roll call vote at first reading as well. Mayor Coughlin stated he will use his prerogative to request a roll call vote to be called. ROLL CALL: Thomason, Stigney, Marty, Quick, Coughlin. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that this first reading was approved by the unanimous vote of the Council. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Introduce First Reading of Ordinance 666, an Ordinance Vacating the Old Edgewood Drive Right of Way Included within the Proposed Walgreens PUD, Mayor Coughlin requested a roll call vote to be called. ROLL CALL: Quick, Stigney, Marty, Thomason, Coughlin. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 • Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that this first reading was approved by the unanimous vote of the Council. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Introduce First Reading of Ordinance 669, an Ordinance Authorizing Disposing by Sale of City-Owned Real Property. Mayor Coughlin requested a roll call vote to be called. ROLL CALL: Marty, Thomason, Quick, Stigney, Coughlin Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that this first reading was approved by the unanimous vote of the Council. B. Public Hearing and First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments within the City of Mounds View. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. • Planning Associate Ericson stated the Mounds View Municipal Code does not at this time address tattoo or body piercing establishments. He stated that Ordinance 653, which was adopted on February 14, 2000 to prohibit any tattoo shops or body piercing establishments to be located in the City for a period of six months, has been superseded by Ordinance 667, adopted August 7, 2000, which extends the moratorium on such uses an additional three months. With the adoption of Ordinance 667, such uses cannot locate in Mounds View until November 14, 2000, or until the effective date of this proposed Ordinance 663, whichever occurs first. He explained that the Council raised some questions at the work session on August 7, 2000, regarding the licensing provisions, training and certification of the specialists. Because of other development cases being processed, staff has not had sufficient opportunity to explore these issues yet is confident that such information will be made available prior to second reading and adoption. If these questions are not fully addressed to the Council's satisfaction, second reading can be put on hold until such time that those questions are addressed. The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of Ordinance 663 as indicated in Planning Commission Resolution 629-00, approved at their meeting on July 19, 2000. Staff recommends the Council hold the public hearing (and continue it to August 28) and consider the first reading (introduction) of Ordinance 663. • There was no public input. Mayor Coughlin stated the Public Hearing would be continued to the August 28, 2000 meeting. Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve First Reading of Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishment within the City of Mounds View. Upon inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Vose advised there is no legal prohibition to consider first reading while the public hearing is continued. Council Member Stigney stated at the work session he had asked about including language to require training, certification, or accreditation prior to opening such a business. He noted staff will continue research on that issue and the language would be included prior to consideration of second reading. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5455 Approving Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing Amendments. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:14 p.m. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained that as indicated at the Council work session, modification of the Mounds View Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing Plans establishes the necessary framework to provide tax increment financing assistance for the Mermaid's proposed hotel and banquet center expansion. He stated that the anticipated level of assistance being negotiated with the developer is 90% of the available increment over a period of 10.5 years or duration of the TIF district not to exceed $2 million to $2.5 million. He stated that issue will be considered at a future meeting. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish noted the letter outlining the "but for" requirements of the legislation and need to articulate those findings. He stated those findings will be quantified and articulated in terms of sources and uses of funds compared to anticipated levels of income to define the rate of return at an upcoming meeting. He stated staff is in the process of negotiating this agreement and requested input on the possibility of scheduling a work session during the third week of September to consider this and the Mermaid development plans in conjunction with their PUD application so the developer could place footings prior to frost conditions. There was no other public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:18 p.m. Dan Hall, representing the Mermaid, stated his family has had this property for 27 years and this • idea for a banquet center started with him and his father about five years ago. He reviewed how this concept developed and their decision to approach City staff about the availability of assistance to put this type of project together to help with property acquisition and demolition. Mr. Hall stated there has been a lot of progress and cooperation realized with the City Council Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 . and City Staff. He stated they have incurred obstacles including the finding that the soils will not support the type of facility they would like to build. He reported that the location of the bowling alley and banquet center is where Rice Creek used to be and the soils do not support the buildings. Mr. Hall noted the estimated costs for different construction concepts to address the poor soil conditions and stated they hope to be able to do a soil correction, noting these costs do not include technical or engineering work. He explained the cost of this project is skyrocketing due to increased land costs, construction costs, soil corrections, and without TIF, this project will not move forward. Mr. Hall commented on this family's financial commitment into this project already and stated it is important for them to proceed with the project. He stated the AmericInn franchise and hotel management is preparing comprehensive informational packages. Council Member Stigney asked about future projections and guarantees for the City should there be a bankruptcy. Mayor Coughlin noted this is a pay-as-you go TIF consideration. Bob Hajec, attorney for Mr. Hall, stated this is a pay-as-you go project and secured through real estate taxes so the City is very secure in knowing that what ever is negotiated, the City will get it regardless of bankruptcy. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish stated if the taxes are not paid, it will go to tax forfeiture and when liquidated, the proceeds to back to the taxing jurisdiction. Mayor Coughlin stated that John G. Kinnard would not be involved in this project unless it was a viable business for the foreseeable future. Council Member Marty asked if all of the land parcels have been secured. Mr. Hall stated they have. MOTION/SECOND: ThomasonlMarty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5455, a Resolution Approving Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing Amendments. Council Member Stigney noted next to Music Off Ten it is a dual business. Mr. Hall stated this is one building with separate walls and they will take the entire building. Council Member Stigney asked about the amendments brought forth on the TIF agreement and asked for an explanation as to why the changes were being made and if it was city-wide or specific for the Mermaid. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained that the changes being recommended are . specific to the Mermaid since it is a pay-as-you go project and any expenditures associated to the project need to be reflected. The amendment adds those expenditures to the TIF budget. He reviewed the history of the City's amendments to the TIF policy to combine districts and need to define the Mermaid project. Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 • Council Member Stigney noted language indicating it refers to the project. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained it refers to the area where expenditures can be made which is the boundaries of the City. He stated the added additional expenditures are anticipated to be project and site specific. As the TIF district is set up, they are fully poolable and one in the same for reporting purposes. Council Member Stigney noted Page 6 indicating the estimated cost of the redevelopment project is $1.5 million but $2.5 million was mentioned. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained this allows the City to be more flexibility in dealing with offices of the State Auditor which states TIF funds must be spent in accordance with the TIF budget so this would provide the City with maximum flexibility should the end documentation for the project indicate $1.8 million. With the recommended language, a TIF amendment to the district is not needed. He explained the budget does not necessarily reflect the amount of assistance to be provided. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish noted the actual numbers of assistance to this project are articulated in the development agreement. Council Member Stigney asked if bonding is anticipated on apay-as-you-go project. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained with apay-as-you-go project a limited revenue obligation, called a TIF Note, is issued which is considered a limited revenue obligation of the • City. Council Member Quick asked if this is typical of all future projects. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish stated nothing different will be done with this project than done with past projects. Council Member Quick moved the question. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Vote on the motion to Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5455: Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5461, a Resolution Approving .the General Concept Plan of the Proposed Mermaid Planned Unit Development. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:38 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Dan Hall, representing the Mermaid, is requesting • City approval of a PUD general concept plan to construct a 97-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. The general concept plan is the first stage of a PUD process. This matter was discussed at the August 7, 2000 work session and revised plans have been submitted to indicate a five foot setback, which had been proposed at a Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 . one foot setback and was a concern of the Planning Commission. He explained the entrance will be relocated farther north and a water park would be added in conjunction with the hotels. Planning Associate Ericson stated a resolution was drafted to approve of the general concept plan and directs the developers to return with landscaping, detailed site plans, drainage, signage, footprints, dimensions, setbacks, parking lot arrangements, final grading, and utility plans. He noted the stipulation included in the resolution that the plans be revised to indicate a minimum five foot parking lot setback along Highway 10 and County Road H, which has been done. Planning Associate Ericson displayed a revised colored site plan, noting the Rexall site has been removed and the Perkins Restaurant will be removed from the site. He reported on the possibility of erecting a "Welcome to Mounds View" monument sign. There was no public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:43 p.m. Council Member Quick noted that Perkins Restaurant had decided to vacate the property on their own. Mr. Hall stated that is correct and Perkins chose not to resign their lease and approached him to sell the property. • Council Member Stigney asked if Perkins Restaurant plans to relocate in Mounds View. Mr. Hall explained this was acorporate-owned store. Bob Hajec, attorney representing Mr. Hall, stated Perkins Restaurant had the right to extend their lease another five years and chose not to renew that option. Mayor Coughlin asked about monument signage at the corner and previous mention that it would be included in the Mermaid development He asked if that is still being considered. Mr. Hall stated the monument placement area is "in the works" but he is unsure about the construction of a monument sign. Mayor Coughlin stated concerns have been raised regarding how the statuette will be altered to meet modern sensibilities. Mr. Hall stated there are no iron-clad plans presently but, at the least, it will be removed and redesigned with clamshells, a more modern and conservative look with a softer image. He stated his management staff supports retaining the mermaid in some motif since it has been part of this property since the 1960s. Mr. Hall indicated a willingness to consider public input as well. He noted that AmericInn will not want to be associated with anything that does not reflect a good image and assured the Council they want a prosperous business at the Mermaid as well. • MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5461, a Resolution Approving the General Concept Plan of the Proposed Mermaid Planned Unit Development. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting • Ayes - 5 August 14, 2000 Page 17 Nays - 0 Motion carried. E. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1103 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Council held a public hearing and approved the first reading of this ordinance on July 24, 2000. He explained that the changes contemplated by Ordinance 658 are minimal, however, the consequence is such that the Council may require or allow a fence up to eight feet tall in a front yard to satisfy buffer, screening, or privacy issues. He advised that Ordinance 658 adds the following language to Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3: "The City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety-six inches (96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use permit." Staff and the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 658. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading, and Adopt Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1103 of the Zoning Code Pertaining • to Fences and Fence Heights. Council Member Marty asked if this means only the Council can made the decision. Planning Associate Ericson answered affirmatively. ROLL CALL: Thomason, Stigney, Quick, Marty, Coughlin. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that this ordinance was adopted by the unanimous vote of the Council. F. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Accessory Buildings. Planning Associate Ericson explained that Ordinance 664 was drafted in response to the large number of Conditional Use Permits (CUP) being reviewed and granted for oversized sheds and garages (accessory structures). The Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to arrive at a Code revision that would be more flexible and permissive for the residents, as long as certain predetermined conditions were met. The Planning Commission initiated discussion on this issue on June 7, 2000, and at each meeting subsequent from that point through July 19, the Planning Commission developed and refined the language that is now represented by Ordinance 664. On July 19, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 624-00, which recommends to the City Council adoption of this ordinance. Planning Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 • Associate Ericson explained the square footages that would be allowed under the new ordinance with and without the need for a CUP. Planning Associate Ericson noted the City Council approved the first reading of this ordinance on July 24, 2000. At that meeting, staff indicated that a specific Fire Code reference would need to be footnoted because of the reduced setback requirement. Staff consulted with the City's Building Official, who noted that in a residential district, athree-foot separation is allowed without having to meet more stringent Fire Code construction requirements. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 664. Council Member Quick asked about the requirement for driveways. Planning Associate Ericson explained that a driveway would be required if the garage or structure is to be used frequently. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading, and Adopt Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Accessory Buildings. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that this ordinance was adopted by the unanimous vote of the Council. G. Consideration of Resolution 5457 Ratifying the Appointment of Election Judges for the 2000 Primary and General Elections. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained that State law requires that election judges for Primary and General Elections be appointed by the municipal governing body. Resolution 5457 contains a preliminary list of election judges and with the Council's permission, the list will be expanded if and when necessary. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed recommended the Council approve the appointment of election judges for the 2000 Primary and General Elections. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5457, a Resolution Ratifying the Appointment of Election Judges for the 2000.Primary and General Elections and to allow staff the ability to add names as available. Council Member Stigney asked if a policy is in place to balance the Republican and Democrat judges. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained State Law indicates you cannot have more than one-half of the election judges on one shift of the same party. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting August 14, 2000 Page 19 H. Approval of Springsted Phase 2 of Highway 10 Action Plan Development Work Plan. Dave Wettergren, Springsted, Inc., presented a proposed work plan for the Highway 10 Action Plan. He noted the report that was presented at the last Council work session, as produced by a task force, and the recommendation to proceed with the development of an action plan. The report identified a number of capital and administrative items, many with associated costs. He explained that Springsted is now presenting a proposed Phase 2 work plan that would engage the City and Springsted whereby Springsted would assist the City in the work plan. The primary objectives would be to assist the City to develop cost estimates and identify funding sources for each administrative and capital item identified in the steering report. Springsted would also assist the City in the prioritization of action items and the creation of implementation schedules of items eventually included in the Highway 10 Plan. Mr. Wettergren reviewed the highlighted action items to identify which issues would receive further study, to attach cost estimates to the identified action items, and to develop a tentative financing plan for consideration by the City. When project cost and funding alternatives are identified, they will prioritize action items to be considered for plan implementation. He noted this proposal contains several checks and balances to identify actions, then to determine cost estimates and funding sources, with another Council opportunity to again address implementation. Once the implementation plan is created, tasks would be identified along with • associated costs and timelines. Mr. Wettergren stated they would present basic debt schedules and tax impact analysis. He recommended a staff member be identified to work with Springsted who can advise them what concerns or issues need to be brought back to the Council. He stated there is a possibility that the Council could be expected to incur some costs to determine the cost estimates and they would be -sensitive to assure proper Council authorization. Mr. Wettergren estimated it would take six to eight weeks to identify tasks and cost estimates. Council Member Marty asked if the cost estimate of $9,075 is relatively firm. Mr. Wettergren stated it was bid at anot-to-exceed with hourly billing. Mayor Coughlin noted to exceed that amount, additional Council authorization would be required. Council Member Quick left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To approve the Highway 10 Study Phase 2 Work Plan and authorize the expenditure of up to $9,075 to Springsted to complete the study and to designate Community Development Director Jopke as the staff person to work with Springsted. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Absent - 1 (Quick) Motion carried. Mr. Wettergren reported that Bob Thistle will be working on this project on behalf of Springsted. • • • Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting August 14, 2000 Page 20 I. Consideration of Scheduling a Special Work Session. Mayor Coughlin noted the request of staff to set a special work session on September 18, 2000. Council consensus was reached to authorize staff to post a special work session for September 18, 2000, if deemed to be needed. Council Member Quick returned to the meeting at 9:06 p.m. 11. Next Council Work Session: Next Council Meeting: Monday, August 21, 2000 - 6:00 P.M. Monday, August 28, 2000 - 7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Carla Wirth Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please sign in .-~.) l 1~: ADllRE S S `~ ~,~~ ~ D C:Admin.resolution.sign-in sheet