Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2001/02/12PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTr1 ~~~~ Regular Meeting ~ p, ~~, ,;,~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~,5 February 12, 2001 .~ .~:~ ~ ~ Mounds View City Hall ~. . n ~ w~~ kf' ~r~~ ~y 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:04 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, February 12, 2001 City Council Agenda. Mayor Sonterre asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Remove Items 7E, 7F, and 7G from the Consent Agenda for Discussion. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Sonterre/Marty. To Add Item lOB to the Consent Agenda. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve the February 12, 2001, City Council Agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, January 22, 2001 City Council Minutes. Council Member Marty requested the following changes: On Page 3, third paragraph, second line change the line to clarify he was on the Park and Recreation Commission as well as being on the Planning Commission. On Page 7, second paragraph, correct the spelling of Barbara Hawke to Haake. On Page 11, sixth paragraph also correct Hawke to Haake. • Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mayor Sonterre requested that on Page 5 the word "County" be inserted in front of Highway 10 to differentiate between the old and new 10. On Page 12 on the roll call vote change Sonterre to an aye vote and Thomas to nay. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, January 22, 2001, City Council Minutes with the requested changes. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Accept Park & Recreation Meeting Minutes, December 13, 2000 Council Member Stigney inquired as to why this item was on Council's agenda. He also asked if Council was merely acknowledging the Park and Recreation Committee had minutes or if Council needed to be concerned with the content of those minutes. Mayor Sonterre explained per city code the Park and Recreation Committee must share its minutes with Council and the Planning Commission. Council Member Marty noted the Committee had discussed requesting funds for a City survey of park needs and inquired as to whether that request will be discussed at an upcoming Council work session. • Mayor Sonterre explained the issue was discussed in a previous work session where Council directed the Committee to begin the survey process. Council Member Marty inquired as to whether the City needed to look for a cost estimate for this survey or whether the survey was in the preliminary stages. Public Works Director Ulrich confirmed the survey was in the preliminary stages indicating it still needs to be determined whether to proceed with the survey. Council Member Stigney noted the agenda for the Park and Recreation Committee meeting had a typographical error in the year. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Accept the December 13, 2000, Park & Recreation Meeting Minutes as presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Presentation of Resolution 5517, Resolution of Appreciation to Retiring Deputy Chief James I. Hansen Mayor Sonterre presented Retiring Deputy Chief James I. Hansen with a Resolution of Appreciation and thanked him for his years of service to the City. B. Presentation of Resolution 5525, Resolution of Appreciation to Retiring Fire Motor Operator John Durkot Mayor Sonterre presented retiring Fire Motor Operator John Durkot's Resolution of Appreciation to Nile Zikmund, Fire Chief, in Mr. Durkot's absence. C. Recognition of Patricia Michna for 22 Years of Service to the City of Mounds View Mayor Sonterre presented Patricia Michna a Resolution of Appreciation for her 22 years of service to the City of Mounds View. Ms. Michna thanked Mayor Sonterre and said it has been a pleasure to work for the City. She then explained there is a bill before the legislature for a statewide records system and asked everyone to write to their legislators to voice their support. She also thanked city staff and the officers she has worked with over the last 22 years. D. Resolution 5528, Establishing aTri-City Task Force to Study the Water Quality of Spring Lake MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5528, a Resolution Establishing aTri-City Task Force to Study the Water Quality of Spring Lake. Council Member Stigney clarified this study will be of no cost to the City. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 6. REPORTS Mayor Sonterre reported he went to the Ramsey County League of Minnesota Cities forum on January 25, 2001 where he voiced his sentiments for removal of a City sales tax and how expansion of the sales tax would impact the City. He reported he also voiced his concerns for transit in the City in Light of the fact Mounds View is not in line to receive any form of light rail transit. • Mayor Sonterre reported on January 27, 2001 he and Mr. Ericson attended the dedication ceremony for 2225 Hiliview. This is a house that through a cooperative effort with Habitat for Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 • Humanity, the City and private organizations was purchased and rebuilt and now has a happy mother and two children living in it. Mayor Sonterre reported the I-35W corridor meeting was January 25, 2001. Mayor Sonterre reported he met with Representative Evans and Senator Chaudhary on February 12, 2001 to discuss upcoming legislation. The most important of which is turnback funds from the state to the county and how this limits what the City can do as far as improvements to the County Highway 10 corridor. Both Representative Evans and Senator Chaudhary have indicated they will begin work to find a way around the turnback issue in order to allow the City to make improvements to the County Highway 10 corridor. Mayor Sonterre reported the cable schedule is now on the City website and will be monitored and maintained. He also reported Focus News has agreed to run a weekly schedule with changes as necessary. Council Member Marty reported there was a short golf course meeting today. Mr. Hammerschmidt gave a brief update on First Tee and the golf course expansion. Council Member Marty clarified they were just discussing it at this point, not going forward at this time. They did however decide to make application to the First Tee organization. The Committee also discussed having a golf course task force committee made up of residents. This may or may not be a good idea depending on what future course the City takes with the golf course. If the Committee does decide to have a citizen task force the City will let residents know. He also noted the City bulletin board sign was incorrectly displa}nng the time for the meeting as 5:00 p.m. not 5:30 p.m. Council Member Stigney reported he had attended the Rice Creek Watershed meeting with residents on the ponding issue. He noted it would be nice if other Council could review the tape to make themselves aware of residents' concerns as there still seems to be a lot of concerns. Mayor Sonterre noted there must be a lot of interest in the meeting as both copies of the tape were checked out. Council Member Marty reported he attended the first meeting of the Community Center last Monday before the work session. There was discussion on developing a plan for emergency procedures for the City. Retired Lieutenant Dave Brick is the emergency coordinator for the City and the City hopes to replace him soon. Mayor Sonterre noted the Community Center will be hosting the North Metro Home and Garden Show on Saturday March 3, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Last year's home and garden show brought 2500 plus people to the City. City Administrator Miller noted Council had received the golf course feasibility study at the • work session and told Council that officials from Springsted would be at the next City Council Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 • • meeting. She asked Council to look through the document and contact her if there were specific issues Council would like Springsted to be prepared to answer at the Council meeting. Council Member Stigney questioned whether it may be preferable to have Springsted attend a work session to discuss the feasibility study rather than a Council meeting. City Administrator Miller explained Staff felt there would be more time available at the last Council meeting of the month as work sessions are usually quite long. Mayor Sonterre noted the golf course would either be on the work session or Council meeting agenda throughout the next several months broken down into smaller fragments for easier discussion. City Administrator Miller noted Council was provided with an information packet last week and asked Council to let her know what, if anything, Council would like to see added. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Consideration /Award of Community Center Pond Expansion Bids D. Resolution 5522, Appointing Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson to the Park and Recreation Commission E. Resolution 5523, Authorizing the Hiring Police Officer Jennifer Ann Kuhl. F. Resolution 5524, Authorizing the Hiring Police Officer Kasey James Keekeisen. G. Resolution 552b, Authorizing the Promotion of Officer Tim Brennan to Police Commander H. Resolution 5529, Silver Lake Woods Homeowners Association Use of City Hall Basement I. Discussion and Approval of Restaurant License for That Coffee Shop. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A - D, G, and I as presented. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Amend the Motion to Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A - D, G, and I to Remove Item 7C for Discussion. Ayes - 5 Nays -1 (Quick) Motion carried. • Council Member Stigney read the names of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the Parks and Recreation Committee. Vote on Motion to Approve A, B, D, G, and I of the Consent Agenda. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 Council Member Sti ne in aired as to wh there was a need to ex and the pond as the City just g Y q Y P put in the Community Center pond. Public Works Director Ulrich clarified there was not a problem with the pond for the area it was built to drain. He then explained that back in 1996 when Bronson Drive was reconstructed the City contemplated purchasing the Midland Videen property and thought that would include a larger wetland and retention pond. The City did not purchase the property and, consequently, there was no retention pond constructed. The City requested as part of the Walgreen's Development Agreement that they expand the pond and connect it between the storm sewer around the Midland Videen property and cross under County Highway 10 and expand in the frontage on Bronson Drive. The Walgreen's officials determined the land swap was too expensive for them and that item was removed from the Developer's Agreement. This item was presented at the work session and Staff had requested to use funds to expand the pond. It was Staff's understanding that this item was approved at the work session. Council Member Stigney noted he believed Walgreen's was putting in a pond that was to be a regional pond. Public Works Director Ulrich explained the pond going in is to replace the pond on Edgewood Drive and to take care of Walgreen's impervious surfaces and is not a regional pond. S Council Member Stigney stated it was his understanding Walgreen's would be creating a regional pond. Community Development Director Ericson explained there is a storm sewer running under Edgewood Drive that will be diverted partially into the new pond. One of the requirements is that some of the water underneath Edgewood Drive be handled by the Walgreen's pond. This is a different drainage shed than Bronson Drive. Walgreen's deemed the water issue on Bronson drive not to be related to their project and declined to install a regional pond. Council Member Stigney clarified Walgreen's was not creating a regional pond on either side of the property. Community Development Director Ericson stated it depends on what a person calls the pond. The pond will take runoff from the City Hall property, the property to be developed, and some water under Edgewater Drive. It will not, however, treat the water on Bronson Drive. Council Member Stigney asked whether treating the water was of benefit to the Rice Creek Watershed. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated it was of benefit to filter the water before it entered the watershed. • Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Council Member Stigney asked if Rice Creek Watershed District would be contributing to the funding of the pond. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he was told Rice Creek Watershed District had no funds available to assist with the pond. Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether Staff was currently seeking funds. Public Works Director Ulrich explained that other than the initial conversation with Rice Creek Staff has not sought funds. Council Member Stigney requested Staff ask Rice Creek Watershed District to contribute funds for the ponding project. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated Staff would speak to Rice Creek Watershed District concerning the ponding project. Council Member Marty noted he had similar questions concerning the ponding issue but had asked them before the meeting and was given the same explanation as Council Member Stigney just received. He stated he was a little surprised at the bid and thinks it is a good bid. He also stated that based on information from Staff it seems Rice Creek Watershed District officials have told them the ponds are a proactive approach by the City. In light of that information, the City should ask them to contribute funds to the ponding project. If they are not able to, the bid appears to be a good bid. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Item 7C on the Consent Agenda and Direct Staff to Seek Rice Creek Watershed Funds to Assist with the Construction of the Retention Pond. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carved. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Table Consent Agenda Items 7E and 7F for Further Discussion. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7G With a Change of Title from Police Commander to Police Lieutenant. Council Member Stigney questioned the difference in title. Council Member Quick explained Council sets the chain of command and he feels it needs to be discussed at a work session. Council Member Stigney suggested tabling the issue to the work session for further discussion. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 • • Council Member Quick explained he would like to put the candidate in the lieutenant position and have Staff come to Council with a suggestion for the title change. Council Member Marty stated Counci] did approve a search to replace Lieutenant Brick so what Council approved was a replacement of the lieutenant's position and Staff has come to Council with a title change. Council needs to fill the lieutenant position and clarify the change of title with Council later. Council Member Stigney stated he was not prepared to discuss the title change at this meeting. Council Member Marty explained Council had approved a job search to fill a lieutenant position. On this agenda the title has been changed to police commander rather than lieutenant and he would tike to fill the position Council has already approved which is that of lieutenant. Council Member Quick explained Council approved several years ago the creation of a lieutenant's position. His motion is to fill the position of police lieutenant as approved previously by Council. If the Chief wants a different title he can bring that issue to a work session. Council Member Stigney asked the significance between the commander and lieutenant position in pay and responsibilities. Chief Clark explained there was a reorganization by the Civil Service Commission of the chain of command that was presented to Council for approval. This Resolution is requesting the creation of a commander position and appointing of a person to that position. There is no pay change or change in duties. It is merely a change in title to make Mounds View more compatible with surrounding cities. It is a matter of police hierarchy. In other communities the title of the number two person has been changed to commander. Therefore, there are issues when a lieutenant calls a commander the commander then calls the Chief back and the Chief has to relay the information back to the lieutenant. A change of title from lieutenant to commander would eliminate this problem. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Move the Question. Ayes - 4 Nays -1 (Stigney) Motion carried. • Mayor Sonterre asked Chief Clark to be prepared to discuss the title change at an upcoming meeting. Vote on the Motion to approve Item 7G on the Consent Agenda with the title change to lieutenant. Ayes - 4 Nays -1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Werner of 2765 Sherwood Road noted at the last work session Springsted presented a feasibility study on the golf course. The financial guru explained the study outlined four types of bonding up to $4.5 million dollars. One of the bonding methods which seemed most advantageous to the City seemed to be the one which required a referendum by the people. Mr. Werner stated he was wondering what the City Council view is on the subject of getting the best rate in spite of having to get the people to approve it. Mayor Sonterre explained at this point in time he does not have enough comprehension of the study and is not ready to respond to a question of that nature. Council Member Thomas clarified that not all of the funding options were bonding options. There are other options that did not involve borrowing money to fund the golf course expansion. Council Member Marty reported Mr. Hammerschmidt had ordered ten (10) copies of the Springsted report if Mr. Werner or other residents are interested in reading the report they can contact Mr. Hammerschmidt. Mr. Werner stated the financial guru had also mentioned the City may be getting close to its bonding limit. He then asked if that were the case. Council Member Marty stated he was sitting between Mr. Hammerschmidt and Mr. Kesel at the meeting and can confirm that the statement of the financial representative concerning the bonding limit was in error. Council Member Marty recommended Mr. Werner contact Mr. Kesel for further information. Council Member Stigney stated he had spoken to Mr. Hammerschmidt and asked him about taking the issue to a referendum and Mr. Hammerschmidt was in favor of doing so. Mr. Werner asked whether TIF funds would be involved with this golf course expansion. Council indicated there would not be TIF funds involved with this golf course issue. David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road stated he had attended the golf course meeting and wanted to summarize what he said at the meeting. He indicated he feels that anything having to do with the golf course should be decided by resident comment on whether or not they want it. In the past the City went about the whole thing wrong and got into financial trouble because of it. Even if the study says it may be feasible to build it he has a problem with the City funding a business venture. He thinks the City should get out of the one it currently has and pay it off before • looking to the future to see if the City should be in business for a golf course. Mr. Jahnke stated Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 he does not understand why the City would look into building another nine holes if it cannot make the first nine work. Dan Lamb of 2305 Sherwood Road stated he had attended the Rice Creek Watershed meeting on the Greenfield ponding issue. Again, in his opinion, it lacked the information residents had requested. Last September Mayor Sonterre's e-mail stated he had compiled a list of questions and forwarded them to Rice Creek. These questions were not answered and residents still have not received the information. In essence, in his opinion, Rice Creek was not prepared to answer the questions previously asked of them. Residents did have a list at the meeting aside from the list the mayor had said he would provide. He then asked if the City could pull this together somehow. Mayor Sonterre stated he took issue with the comments of Mr. Lamb. He indicted everything sent to him as liaison on the ponding issue was forwarded on to Rice Creek which he can prove by providing information on all e-mails sent to him. All e-mails concerning the ponding issue were forwarded to Rice Creek and Mike Ulrich. So, the statement Mr. Lamb made indicating the questions were not forwarded to Rice Creek is false. Mayor Sonterre then noted Mr. Lamb was on public record as saying he was opposed to the pond in every way, shape and form. Mayor Sonterre also noted he has heard Mr. Lamb say that anything he could use to derail the project he would, so any comments made by Mr. Lamb to him are viewed in that light. Mr. Lamb stated Rice Creek had told him they had not received a list of questions. Mayor Sonterre clarified everything sent to him on the ponding issue was forwarded on to Rice Creek. Mr. Lamb referred to a letter with highlighted items the City needed to provide before the project could proceed. He then asked if the City had provided any of those items. Council Member Marty stated the City has not provided any of that information. Council Member Stigney noted it was mentioned at the meeting but council did not provide the information. Mr. Lamb asked if the City provided direction on any of the items in the letter. Council Member Marty explained the City has not provided direction. The issue is merely in the discussion stages at this point. Mr. Lamb asked if the City has provided a rough estimate of spoils as requested in the letter. • Council Member Marty stated the City has taken no further action at all. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 Mr. Lamb asked if any of the bulleted items have been provided by the City. Council Member Marty explained the City has not moved forward as this issue is still in discussion. No information has been provided. Mayor Sonterre clarified the only direction given by the City is for them to outline a proposal for the City to consider. Mr. Lamb asked if there was any discussion prior to this study with Rice Creek Watershed. Mayor Sonterre stated he was not aware of any discussion prior to this discussion. To the best of his recollection this is the only study he is aware of that came before the Park and Recreation Committee. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinances 677 (EDC), and 678 (Planning and Zoning), Amending City Code Language Relating to Council Liaisons to Boards and Commissions. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance 677 (EDC), Amending City Code Language Relating to Council Liaisons to Boards and Commissions. Council Member Stigney questioned whether the Ordinance needed to state the Staff position. City Attorney Vose stated it was Council's discretion. ROLL CALL: Quick/Marty/Thomas/Stigney/Sonterre. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance 678 (Planning and Zoning), Amending City Code Language Relating to Council Liaisons to Boards and Commissions. ROLL CALL: Quick/Marty/Stigney/Thomas/Sonterre. Motion carried unanimously. B. Discussion and Approval of Restaurant License for That Coffee Shop. This item was moved to the Consent Agenda. C. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5527, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for an Office Building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, Planning Case DE00-002. • Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 Community Development Director Ericson explained this item was before Council for development review for an office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue. The applicant is proposing a 2,006 square foot footprint for the office building. Staff and the Planning Commission consider this building to be a nice looking building and one that should maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. This was before the Planning Commission for discussion and received resident input for screening concerns. Mr. Mezzenga and the property owner to the south were not able to make progress concerning the type of screening the property owner wants. Mr. Mezzenga has expressed a willingness to install a six (6) foot or an eight (8) foot fence depending on City requirements. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the building meets all City Code requirements as presented. The proposed leaseable office space for the project is 2,568 square feet which translates to less than 15 parking spaces which is in compliance with ADA requirements. Mr. Mezzenga has indicated there will be building mounted flood lights and no lights in the parking lot. This is a flat lot so there is no real issue as to drainage. The parking lot will be sloped slightly to allow for runoff to flow into the greenspace to be filtered before flowing into the stormwater system. Mr. Mezzenga provided information to Staff tonight on the different types of plantings to be used in the landscaping. Staff has reviewed that information and does not see an issue. The City Forester will review the landscaping plans to make sure it complies with City requirements. The exterior of the building will be masonry and awood- grained maintenance free siding. No signage is proposed at this time. If there is signage the Planning Commission has asked that it be a monument type sign no larger than 100 square feet. The issues of the Planning Commission concerning this site plan were outlined in the Staff report. Staff has also included Resolution 5527 for Council's consideration. Community Development Director Ericson indicated Staff is recommending that the fencing issue be discussed but will leave the decision up to Council. All other issues with the site plan meet City code requirements. Council Member Marty noted the landscaping on the south side of the property and the fencing are the only issues he sees. He then commented Staff and the Planning Commission have made good recommendations. Council Member Marty noted the discussion of foot traffic was an issue and questioned how that was being addressed. Community Development Director Ericson stated Staff is confident that development of this property will divert most of the foot traffic. One of the requirements of the site plan is a fence adjacent to the fence currently existing to divert people around. Council Member Thomas asked if there is City sidewalk in front of the building. Community Development Director Ericson explained there is sidewalk in the County bight-of- way. • Mr. Mezzenga, the applicant, told Council he is receptive and willing to provide whatever type of fencing Mr. Zwirn would like. He noted, however, he did not believe the issue is merely the Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 • fencing. In his opinion, Mr. Zwirn is attempting to slow this development down by refusing to agree to the type of fencing he wants installed. Mr. Mezzenga explained he had tried to contact Mr. Zwirn but did not bend over backwards to do so. Mr. Mezzenga suggested Council approve the site plan at this point but hold the building permit until the fence issue is resolved. Council Member Marty asked if Council could approve the Resolution without resolution of Item 7 which is fencing. Community Development Director Ericson stated he was split on the issue. He explained he has had issues on another development area and it would have been nice if things were completely taken care of before the project started. But, on the other hand, Mr. Mezzenga is right. How long do you table the matter in hopes of reaching an agreement with Mr. Zwirn? Staff would be comfortable with approval at this point and holding the building permit until the fence issue is resolved. Staff does not question Mr. Mezzenga's integrity on this issue and believes he is being up front on his desire to resolve the fencing issue. Staff is comfortable provided legal counsel approves of the suggestion. City Attorney Vose asked if the issue would be coming back to Council for approval. Community Development Director Ericson explained the Resolution, as written, would approve the site development as long as the fence is installed per City Council requirements. Staff . thought there would be something for Council to approve but as Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga have not reached an agreement Council merely has Mr. Mezzenga's assurances that he will install whatever type fence the City requires. City Attorney Vose inquired as to whether the statement "as required by Council" had meaning to Staff. Community Development Director Ericson agreed that at this point, it is not clear what is to be done concerning fencing. Staff was hoping that there would have been a clearly defined plan as to what type of fencing was going to be required tonight. Staff is hesitant to have Council approve the Resolution without knowing what the fencing would be. Council Member Marty asked what the advantage of approving the Resolution now versus when the fencing issue has been resolved. Community Development Director Ericson explained Mr. Zwirn has asked for a screening fence to screen his backyard from the parking lot of the building. If the issue is tabled and brought back before Council in two weeks whether or not the fencing issue has been resolved Staff is comfortable with asking Council to approve the Resolution at that point. Council Member Thomas stated she is concerned that this may be dragged out if Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga cannot resolve the fencing issue. • Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether Council can approve with the stipulation that no building permits be issued until the fence issue is resolved. Community Development Director Ericson stated he is fine with Council suggestion to approve and hold the building permits provided the City Attorney approves. He also noted building permits ordinarily are not issued unless all requirements of the site plan approval are met. He then suggested changing Item 7 to read applicant shall install an eight (8) foot fence along the south property line with the location to be determined. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To table Resolution 5527, a Resolution Approving a Development Review Request for an Office Building located at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, to February 26, 2001 to give the Applicant Time to Contact the Neighbor to the South to Attempt to Resolve the Fence Issue. Mr. Mezzenga indicated he was fine with tabling it but asked that Council not allow Mr. Zwirn much more input other than what his concerns for the fencing are. If so, this could be dragged out for weeks. The building is a story and a half building. He has proposed to put a six (6) foot fence along the whole back of the property. However, he feels an eight (8) foot fence is too tall and offers no more screening than the six (6) foot fence. The six (6) foot fence blocks all views from the main level and an eight (8) foot fence will not block views from the second level of the building. He suggested Council dictate a six (6) foot fence along the whole southern property line. The matter has gotten to the point where he has suggested attaching to Mr. Zwirn's fence to eliminate the issue of maintenance and appears to be getting nowhere with the resident. Council Member Stigney asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission was comfortable with a six (6) foot fence. Community Development Director Ericson said the Planning and Zoning Commission was leaning toward the eight (8) foot fence. However, Staff agrees with Mr. Mezzenga's argument that a six (6) foot fence would sufficiently screen the property from the office building. The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed to defer to Council assuming the fencing issue would be resolved between the applicant and the resident. Council Member Stigney stated he did not want to stipulate a six (6) foot fence as the issue seems unresolved at this point. Community Development Director Ericson said he did not believe Mr. Zwirn's concerns could be addressed. He did not mean this statement as an insult to Mr. Zwirn but Mr. Zwirn has a lot of issues with his property, the property to be developed, and the Tom Thumb property. He does not appear to be happy to have a commercial lot next to him. The City is attempting to satisfy his concerns to the best of its ability. Council Member Thomas stated she is comfortable with tabling the matter until the next meeting but does not want to put it off any longer. She normally is a huge proponent of public input but feels Mr. Zwirn has had ample opportunity for public input. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 Community Develo ment Director Ericson stated he a reed with Council Member Thomas that P g the matter should not be put off any longer than two weeks. He stated Staff will determine what type of fence is appropriate and place that language in the Resolution if the applicant and Mr. Mezzenga are unable to reach an agreement. Council Member Marty asked Mr. Ericson to let Mr. Zwirn know that if Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga are unable to reach an agreement City Staff will determine the type of fencing to be used. Council Member Thomas asked Mr. Ericson to provide a brief presentation on fencing to the Planning Commission at its next meeting for discussion and input. Community Development Director Ericson agreed to put discussion of the fencing on the Planning and Zoning Commission's agenda. Mayor Sonterre told Mr. Mezzenga his plan is good and the fencing issue is all that needs to be resolved.. Vote on Motion to Table. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. Discussion of Street Projects and Assessment Policy. Mr. Ulrich indicated this matter was before Council at the work session. He then went through a brief summary from his staff report and stated he was seeking more input on the issue. Council Member Stigney stated he had no problem discussing at this meeting but said at last work session it did not appear they were solving any issues. It may be more appropriate to discuss this further at the work session. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated Staff was fine with Council Member Stigney's position but said he was trying to provide a timeline of past history and obtain input as to where the City is going with this issue as he feels there is a need for a policy. Council Member Stigney indicated he believed there was agreement to leave this issue at the work session for further discussion. He stated he liked the summary provided by Mr. Ulrich but to take any action is not appropriate at this point. Mayor Sonterre asked Mr. Ulrich if he was looking for action on this matter. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he was looking for discussion and input not action at this • time. He then gave a brief overview of the past history of this issue pointing out various street projects within the City completed over the past few years. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 16 Public Works Director Ulrich indicated Staff believes there needs to be a policy and procedure for improvements so that the residents feel the improvement is worthwhile and useful. Staff is wondering where the objection to the projects lies and needs direction as to how far streets are allowed to deteriorate before steps are taken to improve them. Staff is willing to do research on funding but feels there is a need to develop a policy for the City. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he had compiled information from other cities in the area as to how they handle street project improvements and gave a brief overview of that information to Co~incil. Council Member Stigney asked for a copy of the information presented to Council on other cities. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he would provide a copy to Council Member Stigney. Council Member Marty inquired as to how the pavement construction index number is arrived at. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated City Staff was initially trained how to conduct surveys of selected areas. There was a controlled area they went out to with supervision of the professional giving the training. The last survey was done by a pavement management company and not by • City Staff. The condition of the pavement starts at 100 and then throughout the years various cracks, ruts, etc., are all considered deficiencies which will deduct points from the overall rating of 100. Council Member Marty referred to the charts of streets and suggested eliminating no improvement and go with the PCI. Give residents the option of passing for a year or two but determine once the PCI reaches a certain number the street will be improved. Council Member Thomas stated she believed residents were not able to pass for a year or two and have any kind of planning for the street projects. A lot of residents don't see the need to spend the money for a street that does not appear to need repair. She then asked what type assessment basis is used in Cities around Mounds View. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he has data from the past that indicates New Brighton charges $900.00. He believes Spring Lake Park is around $1,200.00. Council Member Thomas asked if the $900.00 was a flat fee or a percentage of the improvements. Public Works Director Ulrich stated the $900.00 is a flat fee. Council Member Thomas indicated she would be interested to see how the fees and rates correlate to how many miles the cities actually reconstruct. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 17 • Council Member Stigney questioned what other cities use the same PCI and what percentage of the PCI do they use to determine when the street should be repaired. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he thought Roseville used the same PCI. Council Member Stigney asked if that percentage was 70%. Public works director Ulrich indicated he was not sure what the percentage was. Council Member Stigney requested that Staff check other cities for what their PCI percentage cutoff number is for determining when a street must be repaired. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he would check into it and also stated he could check with the City's consultant as a large number of cities use the same consultant. Council Member Stigney indicated there was a big difference in the projects mentioned by Mr. Ulrich in his earlier comments as one project is an MSA street and the other is a City street so repairs are paid by residents. Public Works Director Ulrich clarified that the residents on County Road H2 would pay for half of 26 foot of asphalt and base to 9/10 design. They will not pay for anything else. Residents on the northern side with the exception of Arden would pay for 100% of the rehabilitation. • Council Member Stigney asked how many streets the City is planning on doing during what period of time. How many is the City projected to do over what period of time and how many are MSA versus non-MSA. He noted there is $1.6 million in special projects funds and said the City could perhaps use that money for street projects. He also asked Staff to check into using funds in the TIF interest fund for funding the street project repairs. Public Works Director Ulrich noted he had asked the finance director for a brief analysis as the franchise fee was mentioned at the work session to raise it to fund street improvement projects. The finance director told him the current City taxes of an average household are approximately $410.00. The entire four (4) percent of the franchise fee was used to pay off bond payments virtually eliminating a street assessment for street repairs for the next 20 years, using the scenario that the City would do approximately $1 million dollars worth of street projects every other year, the increase in tax dollars to figure the current 2% and the additional 2% it would mean an increase of 13.5% meaning the City needs another $280,000 annually to fund street projects using the franchise fee. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated the average franchise fee paid per resident is approximately $60.00 per year. In essence with a tax increase of approximately $55.00 plus another $30.00 for franchise fee the resident would pay $1600 - $2000 over a twenty year period. These figures include inflation and rising construction costs. They are paying for assessments or bonding in some way shape or form. Doesn't know how residents would prefer to pay for the assessment. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 18 Council Member Marty noted Council Member Stigney had raised a question at the work session instead of using the franchise fee to let them take the tax. Council Member Marty stated he had called Bruce Kessel to ask him about that and indicated the people who itemize would receive a benefit because they could write it off. Public Works Director Ulrich explained a resident with a higher valued home would pay more than a resident with a lower valued home. There are inequities in every assessment plan that Council should be aware of. Council Member Stigney stated Public Works Director Ulrich had asked for direction and stated the City needs to look at all the issues. Whether you take it out of franchise fee or call it a tax the City needs to look at priorities and see what its spending the money on and be upfront with the residents about how the money is being spent. He indicated a desire to make sure the City looks at all the factors in the equation. Public Works Director Ulrich explained the finance director had also mentioned if somebody was moving in or an analysis was being done by the League of Minnesota Cities or the Tribune or if this were to go through the general public they wouldn't know the amount was for a street assessment but would think Mounds View taxes were extremely high. Mayor Sonterre stated the City has a recently adopted street policy not even tested being questioned and he thinks it is sound and would advise to move forward. In talking about the assessment policy if someone should choose to move up to a curb and gutter and new asphalt the resident is being asked to pay 100% of the asphalt cost but 25% of the curb and gutter and sewer. One thing he would like to see is an analysis of the benefit to the City. Mayor Sonterre asked Public Works Director Ulrich if he would like to see all streets upgraded to a curb and gutter system. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated yes he would like to see all streets upgraded to curb and gutter systems but stipulated that in order to improve the drainage that many lots suffer from because of instability of pavement due to all the traffic on the curb line cannot establish a solid curb line and the only way to do that is with curb and gutter. This would also help with drainage. The City would be able to eliminate drainage in backyards and the middle of intersections. The standard he would recommend would be a curb and gutter system. Mayor Sonterre stated he would like to see some consideration given to giving the residents more of an incentive to choose what's better in the long run. If the City can eliminate the 25% residential fee for curb and gutter by offsetting 25% on the street reconstruction fees the residents that are getting a better quality road in the end would feel they were getting more for their money. He stated he would like to have information on how this type of funding would affect the projects and how long the funds would last. Council Member Stigney noted the street of choice for new developments is the curb and gutter system but thirty years ago if the City did a street assessment at that time it may have been worth Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 19 • it but now to come and say you need a new street because your street has not been good for the last thirty years does not make sense to the residents because the street is fine, the drainage is fine and the whole neighborhood is thirty years old. The City would be asking a lot of older residents to pay for curb and gutter that many of them deem unnecessary. Council Member Thomas noted there is a difference in the plans for curb and gutter and adding a wider road and sidewalk and people assume when you say curb and gutter the City is widening the road and adding sidewalk. This becomes a major traffic concern for these older neighborhoods. Mayor Sonterre added it can be done in an existing size street. Council Member Stigney stated it could be but when talking about a storm sewer that doesn't currently have one the cost goes up and if it hasn't been needed for many years the City will have a hard time convincing residents they should pay for it. Public Works Director Ulrich stated there is a level of appreciation for who says it is needed and who says it is not needed. If you are on the top of the hill you don't need sewer but if at the bottom of the hill you do. This is not the case in every area but there are situations out there. Some of the drainage problem is water sits in front of a driveway or in front of a mailbox in the spring during thawing. There are not major issues everywhere in town but there are minor issues in different areas. • Council Member Stigney noted that the survey of residents concerning drainage issues found that the majority of residents did not want anything done to their street. The City is asking residents to pay 100% of the asphalt and a portion of curb and gutter if they want that. He reiterated his earlier comment that this is not a new development but an older neighborhood that Mr. Ulrich is asking to bring up to 2001 street standards which many residents don't feel is necessary. Public Works Director Ulrich clarified he is not personally asking residents to pay 100%. That was a decision that was adopted by Council. Communities all over are renovating and bringing streets up to 2001 standards. A lot of the existing curb and gutter stays during the reconstruction if it is already in place and not deteriorated. Mayor Sonterre thanked Public Works Director Ulrich for his work on this project. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 5, 2001 Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 26, 2001 Council Member Stigney asked when the retreat was scheduled. City Administrator Miller told him the retreat was scheduled for April 6`'' and 7`h, 2001. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 20 Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Sate Secretarial, Inc. •