Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2000/10/10PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA .~ , ~ °_ -°`u Special Meeting 3 .,,,~~ 5, '., ~ ~ ~k ~ "' ~; October 10, 2000 '..~,r. ~'~ Mounds View City Hall .. ~~ 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:03 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Stigney, Thomason, and Quick. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Tuesday, October 10, City Council Agenda. i Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. No additions or corrections were noted. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To accept the October 10, 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, September 25, 2000, City Council Minutes. Council Member Stigney noted he had one revision but had forgotten it at home. There were no further changes. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To accept the Monday, September 25, 2000, City Council minutes as presented allowing Council Member Stigney to make his correction at a later date. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 2 6. REPORTS Council Member Stigney reported he attended the meeting between Rice Creek Watershed officials and residents regarding the Greenfield ponding project. Mr. Stigney noted there were several concerns raised by residents at the meeting. Some of the major issues raised were questions regarding use of the pond once the pond is in place. There will always be a pond and there could possibly be a park use for the pond. There maybe trees taken out to put in the pond. Residents questioned if a pond is the best use and value of the land. Residents questioned what the City gets out of putting in the pond other than having a pond in that location. He indicated there was a lot of opposition to the ponding project and a lot of concern raised by the residents at the meeting. Mayor Coughlin noted City Administrator Miller had attended the meeting and inquired as to whether she had anything to report. City Administrator Miller reported she was pleased to see representatives from the Rice Creek Watershed District seemed receptive to working with the residents regarding the concerns raised. Rice Creek Watershed District expressed a willingness to change the location of the pond to allow the trees to remain as a noise barrier. The size of the pond was also changed from 12 acres to 6 acres. Aside from the one resident who did not want a pond under any circumstances everyone else at the meeting seemed open and willing to negotiate to reach a compromise that was good for the City and worked for the residents. Mayor Coughlin expressed his appreciation and thanks to the Mounds View and New Brighton Police Departments and Irondale High School for their presentation of a mock crash last week. He noted he was pleased the mock crash coincided with homecoming week and said he hoped it made the point that underage drinking and driving can have serious consequences. City Administrator Miller suggested the Council reschedule the November 6, 2000 Work Session to November 8, 2000 as the Council would need to meet on November 8, 2000 to certify election results. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To change the regularly scheduled Work Session on Monday, November 6, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. to Wednesday, November 8, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. City Administrator Miller noted she would like authorization to contact an outside financial agency to look at the numbers provided to the City for the expansion of the golf course. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To authorize Staff to contact an outside financial agency to review the numbers provided to the City for expansion of the golf course. • Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 3 Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Cit Attorne L n re rted if h r 1 n h all t to chan e the term of ma or from two y y o g po t e p oposa o t e b o g y years to four years passes it does not apply to whomever wins the election this time. The winner of the election this year will be elected to a two-year term and the winner of the next mayoral election will be seated for four years. City Attorney Long reported the City Charter has specific provisions as to how special elections to fill vacancies are to be run. However, state law has changed and supersedes the Charter. The Charter indicates the person with the third highest vote count would win the seat. There is a new uniform election law requiring candidates be listed and elected separately. This may require some housekeeping to the Charter to bring it in line with the new law. City Attorney Long reported on the status of the billboards at the golf course. There is a legal question involving whether, based on the fact the city owns the golf course, it is appropriate for the City to lease billboard space. He noted the matter is going to be heard before an administrative law judge in the near future. Legal Staff is recommending the City intervene in the process now before a hearing on the matter is set. Intervening as a party would allow the City to be heard and to explain their position. Legal Staff estimates legal fees to intervene at approximately $2,000 to $4,000. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To direct legal Staff to intervene as a party on behalf of the City in the administrative hearing on the billboard issue. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty stated his agreement with City Attorney Long noting if the City waited to intervene there would be a petitioning process that would be more costly for the City. He then inquired as to which City official should attend the hearing. City Attorney Long indicated he would like to wait to see what happens with the hearing and make a decision as to whom would be the best City Staff member to attend. Council Member Marty inquired if the City would be limited in the number of representatives they were allowed to send to the hearing. City Attorney Long indicated the City could use as many people as the City feels is in its best interest. He noted he believes the zoning issue is the key legal issue and said he would probably need Community Development Director Jopke to explain the City's plan for zoning. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed reported when she circulated a memo last week regarding the resident who had expressed an interest in serving on the Airport Advisory Commission she was unaware that a representative had been appointed to that committee. She • Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 4 has since spoken to the representative who expressed a desire to have an alternate appointed in order to have more representation at the meeting. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed noted she had placed information on the ballot questions into Council Member's mailboxes. She noted City Administrator Miller and she had drafted some information to hand out to residents explaining the ballot questions. She requested direction from Council on those materials. Mayor Coughlin noted there were two residents who applied for the opening on the Planning and Zoning Commission. After meeting with both residents Mayor Coughlin noted he felt both parties were equally qualified and so he had Planner Ericson randomly pick from the two applications. The person selected to fill the vacancy is Travis L. Serney of 5057 Sunnyside Road. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To accept Mayor Coughlin's recommendation to appoint Travis L. Serney to the unexpired term on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Council Member Stigney noted the selected individual had lived in the City for four years and inquired as to how long the other applicant had lived in the City. Mayor Coughlin stated he had the application in his office but to his recollection it was somewhat longer. Council Member Marty inquired as to whether the Planning Associate and the Mayor had determined the qualifications of the applicants. Mayor Coughlin noted he had determined on his own both applicants were equally qualified and had Planner Ericson "draw lots" to determine who would fill the vacancy. Mayor Coughlin made a friendly amendment to the motion asking Staff to assign a resolution number to this matter. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Award of Playground Equipment and Funding D. Year 2001 SCORE Funding Grant Application Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove items for discussion. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 5 t • • MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Marty. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, C, and D as presented. Ayes - 5 8. None. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Nays - 0 Motion carried. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR There was no resident input. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5476, a Resolution Regarding the Development Stage of the Proposed Mermaid PUD Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m. There was no public input. Planner Ericson explained to Council Dan Hall is seeking City approval of development stage plans for the proposed Planned Unit Development which contemplates a 70-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. He advised that on September 6, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a set of development stage plans date-stamped August 10, 2000. Prior to City Council review, however, the plans were amended to such a degree that reapproval by the Planning Commission was deemed necessary. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans and on October 4, 2000, approved Resolution 637-00 which recommends approval of the Mermaid's development stage plans. Planner Ericson noted, as mentioned at the Work Session meeting on October 2, 2000, there are a number of changes contemplated by the revised development stage plans. The most noticeable change is that the hotel has been scaled back to three stories and 70 rooms from the initial four- story, 96-room plan and that the Perkins site is no longer a component of the Mermaid expansion. It has been proposed that the restaurant building will be converted to an office use. The water park, which was a separate building located in the hotel courtyard, is now shown to be attached to the east wing of the hotel, replaced with parking in the courtyard area. The total area of the revised PUD is approximately 9.36 acres, which includes the three existing Mermaid Parcels, the Rent-All parcel, Music Off 10 and the dry holding pond associated with the Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 6 business park development. The minimum requirement for a commercial PUD is 5 acres. The existing business park access drive from County Road H would be shifted to the west to maximize the contiguous parking area for the proposed development. Planner Ericson stated the City Council has been provided with a set of plans date-stamped September 28, 2000, for the proposed expansion. The plans include a preliminary site plan, a preliminary utility plan, a preliminary grading plan, a preliminary landscape plan, an existing conditions plan, an overall floor plan, exterior elevations, an enlarged banquet floor plan, hotel floor plans, and a revised photometric analysis of the site. Planner Ericson noted the site plan indicates the proposed and anticipated configuration of the development. As shown on this plan, a total of 828 parking stalls would be required with the addition of the hotel and the banquet center. The plans indicate that a total of 832 spaces can be provided on the site, but only if the parking lot setbacks are reduced from the B-3 zoning district- required 30 feet to five feet along Highway 10 and County Road H. Such a reduction in the setback requirement is allowed via the PUD process, which explicitly states that a purpose and intent of the PUD is to allow for variation from the provisions of the Zoning Code, including setbacks, parking, height, lot area, etc. Planner Ericson explained that because of the number of complimentary uses, Staff and the Planning Commission believe that 828 stalls may be more parking than what is necessary. For this reason, Staff and the Planning Commission would suggest that the minimum parking • required for this site, according to the specifications and area indicated on the plans date-stamped September 28, 2000, be reduced from 828 to 808. This will be addressed within the PUD Document. Planner Ericson explained the setback of the parking lot can be reduced via the PUD process. Approaching this in the strictest sense, if the setbacks requirements were to be enforced without deviation, as many as 175 parking stalls would be lost. The net effect of such a loss would mean either the banquet center would be reduced in size and capacity by 50 percent or more, or the hotel would need to be completely eliminated. Neither scenario would be feasible based upon the already submitted cost and earnings projections. This setback configuration met with the approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council at the concept stage of this development. Planner Ericson explained the building setbacks are different from point to point, but generally speaking, the bowling area would remain unchanged at a minimum setback of 60 feet, the dining and bar area would be more than 200 feet, the hotel addition would be a minimum of 100 feet, while the banquet center would be setback 50 feet. All of these setbacks satisfy the current B-3 zoning requirements. Planner Ericson noted the proposed hotel expansion would be professionally designed to be aesthetically pleasing and would tie in to the existing facility. The hotel addition would be constructed of prefabricated concrete walls and would be finished with maintenance-free siding Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 7 accentuated with sections of Exterior Finish Insulation System (EFIS). A materials board has been submitted and will be available for viewing at the meeting. Other than the relocated main entrance and the painting of the existing exterior walls to match the new additions, no other changes to the existing building are planned. Planner Ericson explained the applicant plans to retain the multi-colored electronic sign along Highway 10 and proposes three directional signs along County Road H. The additional signage is indicated to be of a monument design, which should be encouraged over a pylon type of sign. Refer to Figure 1 for an example of the proposed directional monument signage. Planner Ericson advised the applicant has indicated that the corner of the property adjacent to Highway 10 and County Road H would be reserved for the City to install a gateway entry sign. The site plans have been revised to indicate this easement area. A separate easement document will need to be executed by Mr. Hall and recorded with Ramsey County to make it official. He then reviewed the proposed site signage area and amount of signage allowed under the B-3 zoning provisions. Staff recommends that the total amount of signage on the property, including the existing pedestal sign, be limited to 850 square feet. The applicant has agreed to this request. Planner Ericson reviewed the landscape plan submitted with the site plans indicating conceptual plantings of trees in the parking lot islands and along the front of the building facing Highway 10. The plan indicates the planting of 25 deciduous trees and 4 coniferous trees with additional unnamed plantings in the courtyard area. Staff will seek input from the City Forester as to appropriate species from those listed and for any other suggestions to improve the landscape plan. He noted that to comply with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Mounds View Trails and Sidewalk Plan, the applicant shall be responsible for installing a bituminous trailway along its Highway 10 property frontage. As with the discussion concerning Walgreens, Dan Soler with Ramsey County has verbally indicated that the trailway could be located within the Highway 10 right of way as close to the Mermaid property as possible. The site plan shows the trailway extending north beyond the project area in front of the Perkins site. While Perkins is no longer part of the PUD, Staff would recommend that the trailway and lighting remain as shown on the plan. Planner Ericson reviewed the photometric analysis which had been submitted in conjunction with the development stage plans. The applicant intends to utilize the existing parking lot lighting where possible with the addition of new light fixtures at the southern end of the building. No specifications were provided for the proposed new lighting. The site plan does indicate the location of six decorative lights along the Highway 10 trailway. Because the City is working with NSP to install these lights, the applicant will need to submit a payment directly to the City to cover the cost of installation. Such amount would then be deducted form any required letter of credit or cash surety involved with the financial guarantee of the public improvements. Planner Ericson noted the proposed site plan indicates two Highway 10 accesses and two County Road H accesses. While this would not represent a change from the existing configuration, the two accesses serving the Rent-All property would be eliminated. No new accesses, other than s Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 8 the relocated access to the business park, are contemplated with this proposal. The northern Highway 10 access is actually located on the Perkins property, although there is a joint use agreement filed regarding the access. He advised that Staff and the City's engineer have been working closely with the applicant and Rice Creek Watershed District to create a regional stormwater holding pond that would be located partly on the Metro Waste Control property and partly on Edgewood Middle School property. While the final drainage plans and use agreements are still being drafted, all indications are that all parties--including Rice Creek Watershed District--will approve the stormwater project. Staff recommends Council review and discuss the revised development stage plans and consider action on Resolution 5476, a resolution approving the development stage plans for the proposed Mermaid PUD subject to the following stipulations: 1. The lighting plan shall be revised to show the light fixture specifications and light standard heights to be used for the new exterior building and parking lot illumination. 2. The total building, monument and pedestal signage to be used on the development shall be limited to 850 square feet. 3. The applicant shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. 4. As required by the Planned Unit Development section of the City Code, the applicant shall execute a development agreement pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and controlling document for this development. 5. The landscape plan shall be further revised to show the specific types and numbers of plantings to be used within this development and shall be approved by the City Forester. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. Council Member Marty commended the applicant and thanked him for his offer to extend the trailway across the Perkins site. He then asked Planner Ericson if the issue of the easement for the gateway sign had been resolved. Planner Ericson indicated there was an error at the County but the document has now been located and there is not a problem with the easement. Council Member Stigney indicated at some point during prior discussions on this project, security at the Mermaid was discussed. He inquired as to whether the applicant would be agreeable to adding a sentence to the PUD document such as "to incorporate such security measures as to ensure the safety of patrons and to minimize the risk of damage to vehicles and theft of property." • Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 9 The applicant, Mr. Hall, indicated he will do everything he can to enure the safety of his customers. He also noted he is under strict security guidelines from his insurance carrier and his contract with AmencInn. He then noted he was not sure if putting something m wntmg would be appropriate. Council Member Stigney acknowledged the security measures in place for the AmericInn and indicated he was concerned with security for the rest of the Mermaid development. He then said to his recollection at one point in time the applicant had said he would be willing to specifically address security issues as part of the process. Mr. Hall indicated he did not understand specifically what Council Member Stigney wanted in writing. Council Member Stigney explained the sentence would be incorporated as part of the plan. Robert Hajek, the attorney representing the applicant, stated he did not believe it would be appropriate to add a stipulation for security as a condition of the PUD as it is very subjective and impossible to determine whether he would be in compliance. He reiterated Mr. Hall will be under strict security guidelines from his insurance carrier and the contract with AmericInn. Council Member Stigney indicated this is a Planned Unit Development and said he believed the City would be remiss if they did not address security issues. He then asked City Attorney Long if it would be appropriate to add language governing security. City Attorney Long indicated it would be more appropriate to add language requiring something tangible in regard to security such as lighting requirements or fencing requirements. He indicated it would be difficult to put a sentence such as Council Member Stigney read because there is nothing tangible that can be used to prove whether they were in compliance or not. He then noted it would be easier to draft specific criteria. Council Member Stigney suggested security cameras be added. Council Member Marty noted the Council had talked about this issue previously and he believes the applicant has shown the City that security issues will 'be handled appropriately. He also indicated AmericInn would not put a hotel in if they felt there was any type of security issue. He also noted the plan for the hotel specified there would be security cameras. The attorney for the applicant indicated the Mermaid has security cameras in place now for their own protection. Council Member Marty indicated AmericInn has more stringent security requirements than the Mermaid has in place now and the applicant will have to comply with those requirements. • Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 10 The attorney for the applicant indicated the hotel is concerned because the hotel is located next to . a mixed use facility and the hotel does not want guests to be disturbed by activities that would reflect negatively upon the AmericInn chain. He indicated as a practical matter the security requirements for the AmericInn will be much more stringent than the City would have imposed upon the applicant. Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether there were external security cameras in place in the parking lots now. He noted he would like the cameras to be added to the PUD process as there have been a lot of break-ins at the Mermaid as well as at the theater development. He noted if this area is going to be expanded and more people drawn into the area then the City should look at ways to protect those patrons and minimize the risk. The attorney for the applicant indicated security cameras add a lot of possible liability and expense because if they malfunction the Mermaid may be responsible because they were installed but not working properly. They may not work in inclement weather and the picture quality may not be what is needed to make the tape useful. He also noted there is a huge expense in managing and storing the tapes. He indicated they are deferring to AmericInn and AmericInn has not determined security cameras in the parking lot are necessary. Council Member Stigney inquired of City Attorney Long if it would be appropriate to require specific security measures to minimize cost to the City as far as policing that area. City Attorney Long indicated as a strictly legal matter it is possible to negotiate language requiring lighting and cameras but the language would need to be agreed to by the applicant. Council Member Stigney inquired if Staff could discuss the matter with the applicant. Community Development Director Jopke indicated he had seen a requirement added to the PUD document in another City he had worked in requiring a security plan be approved by the Chief of Police. City Attorney Long noted that would be a tangible requirement and procedurally something like that could be added rather than getting into the specifics of what the plan would require. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney. To direct Staff to look into alternatives for security and determine if they would be agreeable to the Applicant. Mayor Coughlin asked Council Member Stigney to temporarily withdraw his motion because there was not a motion on the table to consider the entire resolution and indicated Council Member Stigney's motion could be added as an amendment to a motion to approve the resolution. Council Member Stigney withdrew his motion. • Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 11 Council Member Marty indicated it was his preference to amend the motion to require that Staff • check with the Chief of Police and if crime levels increase in the development the issue of security could be readdressed at that time. If there is no significant increase in crime then the issue would not need to be readdressed. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5476 with the stipulation that Staff draft a security plan to be approved by the Developer and the Chief of Police as part of the PUD process. Council Member Quick restated the motion as a motion to approve Resolution 5476 and if there are significant increases in crime levels the Chief of Police will review the matter and make a recommendation to Council. Council Member Stigney indicated that was not his motion. Council Member Marty withdrew his second. Mayor Coughlin clarified the motion to be a motion to waive the reading and approve Resolution 5476, a resolution regarding the development stage of the proposed Mermaid PUD with the stipulation that a security plan be drafted by Staff and approved by the developer, and the Chief of Police as part of the PUD Process. • MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Coughlin. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 5476, a Resolution Regarding the Development Stage of the Proposed Mermaid PUD with the stipulation that a security plan be drafted by Staff and approved by the Developer, and the Chief of Police as part of the PUD process. Council Member Marty indicated he feels this does not need to be addressed unless there is a significant change in crime levels in the development. Council Member Stigney indicated his motion with the amendment is to direct Staff to look at a plan, discuss it with the developer and get the approval of the Chief of Police. If the Chief of Police is comfortable with the security plan, then he would be comfortable also. Mayor Coughlin noted the motion needed to be further clarified to direct that Staff and the Police Chief look at the security plan and express their level of comfort with that plan. Mayor Coughlin noted he had received a few comments since the last Work Session regarding the plans for the mermaid statue. He then asked the applicant if there was a plan to retool the mermaid statue to make it more in keeping with modern sensibilities. Council Member Marty indicated he had gotten comments also but said they were predominantly in support of keeping the Mermaid as it is a landmark for the City. • Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 12 Mr. Hall, the applicant, indicated there are numerous things that could be done to the statue to modernize it and make it more politically correct. He noted, however, funds are tight on the project and said he intends to paint the statue at this point and sometime in the future redo it. Mayor Coughlin requested when the statue is painted that something be added to the statue to make it more modest. Planner Ericson noted the resolution also approves of a rezoning of the associated properties from B-3 to PUD and directs Staff to prepare an ordinance to effectuate such a rezoning and to set a public hearing for such action. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5458, a Resolution Approving the Mounds View City Hall Addition Final Plat Planner Ericson noted Mike Kelcher, representing TOLD Development Company, is present and has submitted a revised and corrected final plat date-stamped October 4, 2000, for the proposed Mounds View City Hall Addition major subdivision. The plat encompasses the entirety of the City Hall campus, the Public Works buildings, the Community Center, the remnant parcel created by the realignment of Edgewood Drive, and the Midland Videen open space. The plat creates two buildable lots, one of which would be utilized for a Walgreens and the other for a restaurant use, as allowed by the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The plat also creates an outlot, which will be transferred to the City, and creates a lot for the Community Center and for the entire City Hall campus. Planner Ericson noted that on August 14, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 5454, which approved the preliminary plat of the Mounds View City Hall Addition. The resolution required that the plat be revised to show (1) a drainage and utility easement around the relocated and enlarged stormwater pond, (2) a five-foot drainage and utility easement around the outer- perimeter of proposed Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, and (3) notations pertaining to the vacation of the old Edgewood Drive. These changes have been made and a copy of the final plat has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review, who finds it consistent with the preliminary plat, the City Code and Minnesota platting requirements. Planner Ericson explained the resolution approving the final plat is subject to County approval and stipulates that before City signatures are placed upon the final plat, the developer shall have paid the $44,529 park dedication fee. Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 5458, a resolution approving the final plat for the Mounds View City Hall Addition major subdivision, with stipulations as noted. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5458, a Resolution Approving the Mounds View City Hall Addition Final Plat with the stipulations noted. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 13 • Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Stigney inquired as to the status of the spacing of lights for the development and asked if additional lights will be required. Planner Ericson indicated it had not yet been determined. He then said the City had required one light for every 200 feet which was thought to be the correct spacing. The City has since been told by NSP the proper spacing for the type of light which was used is one light for every 125 feet which would indicate the need for four more lights. This issue is an agenda item at the Economic Development Authority meeting later this evening. Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether the number of lights required by the developer had been resolved. Planner Ericson indicated the developer has installed the number of lights required by the PUD document. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 670, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. Finance Director Kessel explained both Ordinance 670 and Ordinance 671 relate to franchise fees. The 2000 budget and ordinance covers the franchise fee which is a one-year sunset provision that will expire December 31, 2000. There is a 60-day time period for NSP and Minnegasco to be notified and there is also a 30-day notification before the ordinances take effect. In 2040 two and a half percent of the four percent is going into the general fund and one and a half percent is going into the street fund. The 2001 budget designates two percent to go into the general fund and two percent to go into the street fund. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance 670, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. ROLL CALL VOTE: Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason, Coughlin. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 671, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View Mounds View City Council Special Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 14 • MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance 671, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. Council Member Stigney noted the official name of NSP has been changed to Excel and inquired as to whether the document should be changed to Excel in the ordinance. Mayor Coughlin made a friendly amendment to the motion to change NSP to Excel. ROLL CALL VOTE: Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason, Coughlin. Ayes - 5 11. Next Council Work Session: Next Council Meeting: Nays - 0 Motion carried. Wednesday, November 8, 2000 - 6:00 P.M. Monday, October 23, 2000 - 7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: • Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. •