Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2001/12/10_a ~ ~ - ~'' } 1i PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL j CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA i t Regular Meeting ~'""~`` December 10, 2001 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ` _ ~ - 7:02 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre (not present), Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, December 10, 2001 City Council Agenda. City Administrator Miller asked Council to move the Special Orders of Business from Item 8 to Item 4. Assistant City Administrator Reed asked that Resolution 5676, a Resolution closing City Hall on New Year's Eve be added to the Consent Agenda as Item 6N. She then noted that the correct • Resolution number for Item 6K was 5675. City Administrator Miller noted that the agenda was amended to include a closed session. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the December 10, 2001, City Council Agenda as amended. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Acting Chief Brennan indicated that an airplane had crashed in Mounds View on November 10, 2001 at 4:20 p.m. and noted that without the assistance of several residents the victims of the crash would not have survived. He then indicated that the City would like to present certificates recognizing those residents for their life saving efforts. Acting Mayor Stigney read the certificate and presented them to Mark Arnold, Dennis Crawford, Bradley Knopf, Lora Allen, Jane Johnson, Christopher Johnson, Jerome Espeseth, Bruce Bogie and Ryan Markfeld. Acting Chief Brennan also thanked the officers on duty, Mike Kampa and Dave Anderson, and all of the other officials who did a spectacular job handling the scene. • Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting • 5. PUBLIC INPUT December 10, 2001 Page 2 Wendy Marty of 2626 Louisa Avenue indicated that when the City purchased the fitness equipment from TSS, Mayor Sonterre, Mr. Sonterre had indicated that he needed payment in advance and she would like to know what he did with the $4,120.00 for six months before placing the order. She then noted that she had received public documentation indicating that the landlord for TSS had filed three eviction summons between June and July 2000 when TSS was evicted. She also noted that Reebok Team Uniforms has a judgment against TSS for amounts outstanding. Ms. Marty asked when she could expect to receive an answer about what Mayor Sonterre had done with the money for the six months prior to ordering the equipment. City Administrator Miller indicated the Mayor was not in attendance at the meeting and said she would relay the request to him. Dana Mendoza of 2633 Clearview Avenue asked if the City could be sued concerning the personal fitness equipment. City Attorney Riggs indicated that Council would be discussing that issue in its closed session this evening. Mr. Mendoza requested that, if it is determined that the City could be sued, the equipment be removed from the Community Center until the City determines how to proceed. City Administrator Miller indicated that a representative from the League of Minnesota Cities had reviewed the equipment and is more concerned with the level of usage and wear on the equipment than with potential liability. She also noted she had received information from the person that oversees the YMCA and that person had indicated that the insurance agency had recommended contacting Reebok to ascertain whether or not there would be a problem as the insurer does not see it as a problem. Mr. Mendoza asked Council to ask the Mayor not to participate in the decision making process on this matter if the City decides to sue the company because it seems to him to be a conflict of interest. Council Member Thomas indicated that Council was not informed enough at this point in time to make a motion as requested by Mr. Mendoza. She then noted that Council would carefully consider his request along with information provided by the City Attorney. Mr. Mendoza asked if the City had received the certified letter Mayor Sonterre had indicated was sent to the City Administrator. • City Administrator Miller indicated she had received the letter and said Council would be reviewing it in closed session this evening. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting December 10, 2001 Page 3 Mary Knoll of 5725 Bunker Hill Drive indicated she had thought the City Attorney had said two weeks ago when she asked about the fitness equipment that it was not part of potential litigation. City Administrator Miller indicated that she was told that the fitness equipment was part of potential litigation. Ms. Knoll indicated that she feels that the Mayor should be held to a higher standard and he has failed the citizens of Mounds View. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution 5670 Approving a Contract with Incode/CMS for the Purchase of Fixed Asset Accounting Software B. Licenses for Approval - No Licenses Submitted C. Resolution 5660, Approving the 2002 SCORE Recycling Grant Request to Ramsey County D. Resolution 5654, Approving a Step Increase for Lois Lestina-Yost E. Resolution 5662, Approving a Step Increase for Jim Ericson F. Resolution 5563, Declaring the Housing Inspector a Fire Fighter for Enrollment in PEItA's Police and Fire Fund G. Resolution 5661, Approving the 2002 Fee Schedule H. Resolution 5564, Authorizing a Cost of Living Adjustment for City of Mounds View Employees I. Resolution 5665, Hiring a Public Works Director J. Resolution 5666, Hiring an Economic Development Coordinator K. Resolution 5675, Authorizing Payment to Elegant Thymes Management Company L. Resolution 5669, Authorizing the Fire Department to Apply for a State Grant to Continue as a Chemical Assessment Team M. Resolution 5668, Appointing a Building Official/Fire Marshall/Fire Inspector N. Resolution 5676, Closing City Hall on New Year's Eve Council Member Marty requested that Items 6D, K, and N be removed for discussion. Acting Mayor Stigney requested that Items 6E, H, I, M, and J be removed for discussion. MOTIONlSECOND: ThomasJQuick. To Approve Consent Agenda Items 6A, B,C, F, G, and L as presented. Council Member Marty indicated he had not received any information concerning Resolution . 5654. Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that at the May 7, 2001 City Council Meeting Resolution 5562 was approved which authorized the hiring of Ms. Lestina-Yost starting at Step 4 and authonzmg her increase to step 4 %2 after six months. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7D as Presented. Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5654 be read. Acting Mayor Stigney asked whether Ms. Lestina-Yost would be receiving another increase in six months or if the next increase would be in one year. Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that the next increase for Ms. Lestina-Yost would be in one year. Council Member Marty commented that if there would have been information in his packet he would not have asked the question. A copy would be provided if his was missing. Council Member Thomas indicated the information was in the packet. Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated she understood Council Member Marty's comments. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5662 be read. Council Member Marty questioned whether the dates in the Resolution were correct becaused it stated that the last increase was approved on September 10, 2001 and took effect on May 17, 2001. City Administrator Miller explained that the City was late in doing Mr. Ericson's performance review and the increase was made retroactive to his six-month anniversary date. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7E as Presented. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5564 be read. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7H as Presented. Council Member Thomas noted that the cost of living increase does not take affect until after the budget is approved. Acting Mayor Stigney indicated that he felt the City was out of line approving a 4% increase for non-union personnel due to the recession the economy is in and the projected social security Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting December 10, 2001 Page 5 increase of 2.6%. He then noted he was aware that the City wants to keep non-union personnel in line with union personnel but said he is opposed to the increase. Ayes - 3 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried. Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5665 be read. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7I as Presented. Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that the start date should be January 2, 2002. Council Member Marty asked when Council would get to meet the new Public Works Director. City Administrator Miller indicated there were no meetings between now and his start date. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5666 be read. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7J as Presented. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty asked if Mr. Backman was at the meeting. Community Development Director Ericson introduced Mr. Backman to Council. Council Member Marty indicated that he did not receive any information on Resolution 5675. Assistant City Administrator Reed apologized for not having information in packets and then explained that Council had authorized Elegant Thymes to manage the banquet center. She further explained that finance had provided numbers through the end of October upon which to base the payment to Elegant Thymes. Assistant City Administrator Reed explained how the contract dictates the payment to Elegant Thymes and asked for authorization to pay Elegant Thymes $5, ] 77.54. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7K as Presented. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Acting Mayor Stigney asked that Resolution 5668 be read. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7M as Presented. • Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 Acting Mayor Stigney expressed concern with including an increase at six months becaused this employee is starting higher up on the pay scale. He then noted he felt the practices have been to wait one year for an increase when starting higher m the pay scale. Acting Mayor Stigney commented that he feels the City could contract out this position and base the pay on a percentage of the building permits rather than hiring a full time employee and paying benefits for that employee. Ayes - 3 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried. Council Member Marty asked that Resolution 5676 be read. Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated this Resolution had come before Council becaused staff had received comments from employees indicating it would be nice to treat the New Year's holiday the same as Christmas Eve. Council Member Marty read the part of the Resolution that requires that employees must use flex time, vacation time, compensatory time or unpaid leave for four (4) hours. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7N as Presented. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing and Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Variance Requested by Harstad Companies Regarding the Proposed Longview Estates Major Subdivision, Planning Case VROl-010. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Mr. Harstad was before Council to request an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of his request to vary from the minimum lot width requirements of Chapter 1010 governing the wetlands. He then noted that he had noticed residents within 350 feet and others known to be interested in the project. Director Ericson indicated that in order to be granted a variance there is a set of criteria that must be met. He then indicated that, in this situation, the Planning Commission felt there was no hardship and no justification to warrant approving the variance. He further indicated that, in his staff report, he had included Staff's interpretation of the criteria and how those could be met. Director Ericson indicated that Staff had provided two Resolutions for consideration, one upholding the Planning Commission denial and another overturning the Planning Commission's decision and granting the variance. Director Ericson indicated that letters expressing opposition to the requested variance received from residents were placed in Council boxes earlier today. Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Director Ericson indicated that it was Staff's recommendation that, potentially, there are grounds for approving a variance but noted the property is covered more than 50% by wetlands. He then noted that Mr. Harstad had made his request to Rice Creek Watershed District and had been approved pending receipt of title documents. Director Ericson indicated that the variance would allow 11 lots versus the eight lots that would be allowed by Code. Director Ericson commented that Staff feels that there is sufficient justification to approve the variance, however, given the sensitive nature of the property Staff would stop short of wholeheartedly saying the variance should be approved. Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Martin Harstad addressed Council and indicated he was there representing his father, Keith Harstad, who owns the property and has owned the property for the better part of 30 years. Mr. Harstad indicated that the local governing unit that governs wetland conservation has given its approval of the project. He also indicated that the Army Corp of Engineers as well as the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources, the DNR, and Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District were notified and none of these agencies has expressed any concern with the proposed development. Mr. Harstad indicated that, if the property did not have the wetlands, he would be able to get approximately 30 lots developed. Mr. Harstad indicated that the neighbors have suggested that the property is in a flood zone and that the houses will sink. He then indicated that soil correction issues would be handled prior to the first house being built because he has no interest in building a house or selling a lot to have a house built on where it would sink. He also indicated that the FEMA map does not show any of the lots proposed on Longview Drive as being in a flood zone. Mr. Harstad indicated he was not denying the fact that there are wetlands on the property but noted there are seven (7) acres and the wetlands have been delineated and a formula used for filling them. Mr. Harstad indicated that tree preservation is important and explained that the watershed uses a formula for filling the wetland of two to one but noted he had asked to stop a little short of the two to one in favor of leaving an outlot to be dedicated to the City in order to save as many trees on the site as possible. Mr. Harstad indicated there would be no development on the Silver Lake Road portion due to the proposed deed restriction and said, if he were to propose lots on both sides, all the trees would be wiped out. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting December 10, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Harstad indicated that the lots he has proposed are in line with the lots across the street and noted that the utilities for 10 of the lots are already installed in anticipation of development. Mr. Harstad expressed a willingness to address resident questions or comments. Pete Severson of 5172 Longview Drive indicated he has lived there for 15 years and explained that there is a dip in Silver Lake Road in the area being proposed for development which indicates to him that it is a swamp. He noted there have been many problems in that area. He also noted that he did not feel the buffer along Silver Lake Road would provide a buffer for residents and expressed concern for the removal of the trees along Longview Drive. He further indicated that he did not have a water issue because he is higher than adjoining properties but stated others in the area do have a water issue because the area is very swampy. Mr. Severson commented that when Mr. Harstad purchased the property it was swamp land and it still is swamp land. He then indicated it is interesting that Mr. Harstad is only interested in selling lots, not building on them and he said he wonders why. Barbara Koziak of 5173 Red Oak Drive indicated that she purchased her property in May of 1973 and was told the area was a preserved wetland and nobody would build there. She indicated she has walked several of her dogs past the area and it is a swamp. She also noted that the street slopes to the wetland and noted that the deer and ducks need the wetland to survive. Ms. Koziak expressed her concern for digging out the wetland and putting in soil that does not absorb water along with adding impervious surfaces to the wetland because she feels that will create a significant water issue in the area. Ms. Koziak indicated that she likes the trees on the site and noted that, while she is not pleased with the tree removal, it would not affect the value of her property but water in the basement would. Dave Tillman of 5166 Longview Drive indicated that he lives on the east side and his basement floor is a foot above street level and he has a sump pump that runs. He also noted that he is sitting on sand and they are speaking of peat soil. Mr. Tillman indicated that this is not a single variance but a request to vary the entire block. He then noted that he assumed that when he purchased his property the City would uphold the Codes in place because he feels varying from those Codes detracts from his property. Vern Larson of 2760 Wooddale Drive indicated that the entire area slopes downhill to the wetland and there are deer and ducks in the wetland. He also indicated that since he is in the lowest area he would end up with the water problems if the matter is not properly handled. Pete Severson indicated that Mr. Carson's house was built without a basement due to the water table. Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 Michelle Sandbeck of 2356 Sherwood Road indicated that she did not live in this area but said about a year ago Rice Creek Watershed was talking about putting in a wetland by her house and has now approved taking this wetland. She then asked if this was some type of exchange and whether or not an environmental impact study was done for this. Director Ericson indicated he did not believe an environmental impact study was applicable. Michelle Sandbeck indicated that, if residents are concerned, Rice Creek Watershed District should determine whether there is a need for an environmental impact study based on the worksheet. Council Member Thomas indicated that Rice Creek Watershed District, as part of its application process, reviews whether or not an environmental impact study is required. Acting Mayor Stigney asked Staff to verify that Rice Creek had looked into the necessity of an environmental impact study. Council Member Marty indicated that an environmental impact study could be requested. Council Member Thomas indicated that, if the City requests the study, the City has to pay for it. William Werner of 2765 Sherwood Road indicated that he has watched this type of thing going on in the City for 40 or 50 years. He then indicated that when the City deviates from the wetland plan it always creates other problems. He further commented that Rice Creek Watershed is not concerned with water problems of the City and asked Council to remember that they represent the overall view of all the residents and this could have an impact on a larger area because storm sewers maybe needed to handle the water runoff. Mr. Harstad indicated that storm sewers is a good issue to raise because he feels his property is wetter than it would be if the City had storm sewer in the area rather than allowing runoff to collect on his property. Mr. Harstad indicated that his father had developed and built a lot of homes in the area and he feels that the lack of storm sewer has had a huge adverse affect on this piece of property. He then indicated that because of the lack of storm sewer in this area he would need to maintain ditches in the front yards and would maintain trees in the front yards as part of the development. He further noted that he disagreed with the comments that there are not many trees along Silver Lake Road because based on the aerial photographs there are a considerable number of trees. Mr. Harstad indicated he could not guarantee a 40 foot wide swath of trees would be saved but expressed a willingness to work with Staff to determine what trees could be saved as part of the grading plan. Mr. Harstad indicated he could not speak to the water problems of the houses in the area but commented that some of the houses were built prior to the requirement to have drain tiling. He Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting December 10, 2001 Page 10 then commented that he would be shocked if the proposed development had anything other than a positive affect on the property values of surrounding properties. Mr. Harstad offered to meet with any resident that would like to meet with him to discuss any of the issues. Dave Tillman of 5166 Longview Drive indicated that it was his recollection from the original neighborhood meeting that Mr. Harstad had indicated that the trees could not be saved because you cannot backfill up four feet on a tree and expect it to live. Dan Mendoza of 2633 Clearview expressed concern for setting a precedent in the City by allowing this variance. He then indicated that, if the City does not grant the same variance to another party, the City could end up in another costly legal battle. City Attorney Riggs requested that Community Development Director Ericson's staff report be entered into the record at this point in the meeting. Item No: 7A Meeting Date: December 10, 2001 Type of Business: PH & CB WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Sta Re oYt To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Variance Request To Deviate From Supplemental Platting Requirements Articulated In Chapter 1010 Of The Mounds View City Code Date of Report: December 3, 2001 Background: On May 15, 2001, Keith Harstad applied fora major subdivision to subdivide the undeveloped property south of County Road H2 between Silver Lake Road and Longview Drive. The parcel, which is slightly larger than- seven acres, lies completely within the wetland zoning district and about half of the parcel has been delineated as wetland. As such, the requirements of Chapter 1010 in addition to 1202 apply to this proposed development. The standard platting requirements contained within Chapter1202 of the City Code require a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. The Preliminary Plat originally submitted by Mr. Harstad conformed to and exceeded these standards. Further evaluation revealed that the wetland zoning district regulations Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 contained in Chapter 1010 were more stringent, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 125 feet. As a result of these requirements, the preliminary plat was redrawn to show all of the lots in excess of the 20,000 square foot minimum. Only one lot, however, can satisfy the 125-foot width requirement which prompted the variance request. On November 7, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny the variance for reduced lot widths within the proposed Longview Estates Major Subdivision. The Commission did not find sufficient hardship to warrant granting the variance and as such approved Resolution 678-O1 denying the variance request. Mr. Harstad has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. Discussion: For the Council to overturn the Planning Commission's denial, it must find that, in its opinion, there is a demonstrated, substantial hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to the property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The following criteria and analysis was presented to the Planning Commission for their review at the November 7, 2001 meeting: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 as part of the Mueller Addition. Considered marginal property because of the wetlands, it was never developed. The vast acreages of available land made its development cost prohibitive. Even so, sanitary and water utility stubs were installed during the road's constructions in anticipation of eventual development on the west side of the road. To not use the preinstalled utilities would cause a hardship upon the applicant and would take away to some extent a preexisting development expectation. The plat was approved and the utilities installed prior to the City's adoption of the more restrictive wetland zoning regulations in 1992. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights common{y enjoyed by other properties under the terms of this Title. If the code requirements in Section 1010 are taken literally, the applicant would lose the potential to develop three lots. Other property owners within this wetland zoning • Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting December 10, 2001 Page 12 district would face similar requirements. However few if any other property owners would have a preexisting vested interest in their undeveloped property as in this case. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The land was originally platted in 1963 and the utilities were installed not too long thereafter. The utilities were installed with the expectations of future development. While the applicant was fully aware of the development constraints of the site, the applicant did not cause the special conditions or circumstances (the wetlands and the wetlands ordinance of 1992.) d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The parcel is zoned R-1, single family residential. The applicant is proposing a development consisting of single-family homes. Granting a variance in this case would not confer a special privilege denied to other property owners. All other platting requirements would be met by this proposal. • e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested would be considered the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship if one were to make the assumption that the subdivision less the wetland zoning district overlay requirements would constitute the standard by which the hardship was measured. £ The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The intent of the wetlands ordinance and the resulting subdivision requirements is to protect the integrity of the hydrological system and the City's surface water management system. In addition, wetlands preservation and sensible land use management are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people within the City. That being said, such preservation and conservation efforts need to be balanced with the right to develop one's property. Because Rice Creek Watershed District, the local regulatory agency governing wetlands development, has approved the plat and alteration plans, and because the lots all exceed 20,000 square feet with significant dedication of easements, staff believes the variance for the reduced lot widths would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning Regulations. t g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting December 10, 2001 Page 13 i It is not expected that the proposed variance for reduced lot widths would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. It was staff's opinion that the hardship requirements were potentially satisfied, however a majority of the Planning Commission disagreed, citing the stated purpose of Chapter 1010, which is as follows: "The Council finds that wetlands within the City, as part of the ecosystem, are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people within the City, as well as within the Rice Creek Watershed District, that existing and potential development within the City and Rice Creek Watershed possess increasing ecological and economic problems and demands, having the effect of potentially despoiling, polluting, accelerating the aging, eliminating or negatively and irretrievably altering both the wetlands and their functions (and the processes associated therewith) which, if managed, will constitute important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets for existing and future residents of the community and the Rice Creek Watershed District. " The larger lot area and wider lot width requirements, the Planning Commission reasoned, was a means to preserve and protect our wetland areas as originally intended by the drafters of Chapter 1010. The one dissenting Commissioner believed that the applicant had satisfied the spirit of Chapter 1010 by platting lots all in excess of 20,000 square feet. The Planning Commission's resolution of denial is attached for the Council's reference. Recommendation: Continue the public hearing and consider testimony and documentation. If the Council believes that the Planning Commission's action was appropriate and that the findings contained in Resolution 678-01 are proper, the Council could approve version 1 of Resolution 5659, a resolution which upholds the Planning Commission denial by rejecting the applicant's appeal. if the Council finds that there is in fact sufficient hardship to justify overturning the Planning Commission's denial, the Council could approve version 2 of Resolution 5659, a resolution which approves the variance for ten reduced-width lots within the Longview Estates Major Subdivision. If the Council should have any questions about this request or the resolutions, please feel free to contact me prior to the meeting. James Ericson i Community Development Director 763-717-4021 Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\VR01-010 (Harstad Variance)\Harstad Appeal Report -Dec 10, 2001.doc The Staff report was added as presented and no changes were made. Acting Mayor Stigney closed the public hearing 8:18 p.m. Council Member Marty indicated he felt the letter submitted by Michael and Helen Grant was excellent. He indicated that the City developed the wetland zoning ordinance to protect and preserve the wetlands in the City. He then indicated that, if wetlands are filled in and a hole is dug for a pond the City would not have wetlands anymore. He further indicated that the wetland cleans the water before it flows into Rice Creek and it also cleans the water before it seeps into the water table and enters the ground water supply. Council Member Marty indicated that it was brought to his attention a number of times in the past that there is a dip in that part of Silver Lake Road. He then commented that the area is a peat bog and that is why they have to continue to fix Silver Lake Road in that area. He further commented that there would be a need to go down hundreds of feet to completely remove all the peat. Council Member Marty indicated that a newly constructed neighborhood of very nice homes in New Brighton was constructed on a wetland and the homes are settling and cracking. Council Member Marty indicated the City had discussed the possibility of having a trailway along the west side of Silver Lake Road in that area because the east side is a designated wetland and the remainder of it is wetland buffer. He then commented that whether it is wetland or wetland buffer the first word is wetland and if you start building in wetlands it could, and has in some cases, cause wetlands to receed. Council Member Marty commented that he did not see how anybody could really build in that area without altering the natural habitat and the wetland conditions there. Council Member Thomas clarified that the variance is not to allow construction but to allow for 11 houses versus the eight that would be allowed by City Code. Director Ericson indicated she was correct. Council Member Thomas asked whether Rice Creek Watershed District had given any comments with its approval to indicate why it felt that allowing this development was acceptable. Director Ericson indicated that he did not receive any other information other than the report which indicated that the development met all the criteria. Council Member Thomas asked whether the City's requirements were taken into consideration. Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 Director Ericson indicated the City's requirements were not taken into consideration as a part of Rice Creek Watershed District review and approval of the project. Council Member Thomas asked if there was documentation available concerning the change in water flows for eight versus 11 houses. Director Ericson indicated that the engineers have not put much time into reviewing the development at this point because it is premature but said that Rice Creek Watershed did look at run off because that is one of the issues to look at and one of the criteria considered and Rice Creek feels with additional wetland area to be mitigated the flow would be acceptable. Council Member Thomas asked for actual numbers. Director Ericson indicated he did not have actual numbers for the difference of eight versus 11 houses. Director Ericson indicated the request was for a variance based on the minimum lot width requirements and Rice Creek was fine with the 11 lots. He then noted that if there were only eight lots the runoff would be less but stated he had no calculations at this time. Dave Tillman of 5166 Longview Drive indicated that the lots were also required to be 20,000 square feet in area rather than the standard 11,000 square feet. Director Ericson indicated that the 11 lots, as submitted, do satisfy the 20,000 square foot requirement. He then indicated that the recommendation of denial by the Planning Commission was not unanimous and noted that one planning commissioner felt that by creating the 20,000 square foot lots the applicant was meeting the intent of the Code. Council Member Marty asked if the lots went all the way to Silver Lake Road. Director Ericson indicated he was not sure how deep the lots were but stated there is a 41 foot outlot along Silver Lake Road. Council reviewed the maps of the proposed development. Mr. Harstad explained that Rice Creek Watershed had determined the areas that were upland and those that are lowland, or wetland. He noted the federal government had created a nationwide standard for making that determination and once the standard is adhered to the property, a wetland delineator puts in flags to mark the area. He then pointed out the upland and delineated wetland area on the map and noted there would not be a net loss of wetlands with this project. Mr. Harstad indicated that by using the City's magic number of 125 feet of frontage it would be possible for him to get more than 13 lots on the property but that would require using Silver Lake Road frontage and wiping out all the trees on the site. Mr. Harstad indicated he also has safety concerns for adding more cars and driveways to Silver Lake Road. Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 16 Mr. Harstad indicated that by using the 125 foot wide lot requirement he would be able to get a minimum of 14 lots on the site but stated he did not think Council or the residents would like to see that type of development in the area. He also stated he did not think it made good planning sense to do it that way because the development as proposed matches up with the development across the street. Mr. Harstad indicated he had stated trees could not be saved on the site but had been corrected by his engineers. He indicated that because of the ditch trees can be left in the buffer area as well as whatever trees are in the wetland. He explained that the only areas they are proposing to go in and grade is the mitigation sites shown on the map. He further explained that the storm water would be treated in a pond prior to discharge into the wetland and that is not currently happening. Council Member Marty commented that he felt approving this variance could set a precedent for other wetland property owners to come in and ask for the same thing. Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Riggs if the City needed to be concerned with setting a precedent in this case. City Attorney Riggs indicated that Council always has discretion and needs to apply the standards of the City's Code to each unique situation. Council Member Quick clarified that what happens here is unique and would not apply to other properties. City Attorney Riggs agreed with the comment of Council Member Quick. Council Member Thomas indicated that Council has had to judge several situations in the last year and Council would be in error to allow a precedent where it did not judge each case on its individual merits. She commented that she did not feel this would set a precedent but stated she has an issue with establishing the hardship. She then asked Community Development Director Ericson to review for her why he feels the hardship requirement has been satisfied. Director Ericson indicated that, per his Staff report, Staff is not so sure that it clearly meets the hardship requirements but a case could be made that it does or could meet the requirements. Director Ericson listed the seven criteria and gave Staff's interpretation of each as follows: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 as part of the Mueller Addition. Sanitary and water utility stubs were installed during the road's Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 17 construction in anticipation of eventual development on the west side of the road. To not use the preinstalled utilities would cause a hardship upon the applicant and would take away to some extent a preexisting development expectation. The plat was approved and the utilities installed prior to the City's adoption of the more restrictive wetland zoning regulations in 1992. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties under the terms of this Title. If the code requirements in Section 1010 are taken literally, the applicant would lose the potential to develop three lots. Other property owners within this wetland zoning district would face similar requirements. However, few if any other property owners would have a preexisting vested interest in their undeveloped property as in this case. 3. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The land was originally platted in 1963 and the utilities were installed not too long thereafter. The utilities were installed with the expectations of future development. While the applicant was fully aware of the development constraints of the site, the applicant did not cause the special conditions or circumstances (the wetlands and the wetlands ordinance of 1992.) 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same distract. The parcel is zoned R-1, single family residential. The applicant is proposing a development consisting of single-family homes. Granting a variance in this case would not confer a special privilege denied to other property owners. All other platting requirements would be met by this proposal. 5. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested would be considered the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship if one were to make the assumption that the subdivision less the wetland zoning district overlay requirements would constitute the standard by which the hardship was measured. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The intent of the wetlands ordinance and the resulting subdivision requirements is to protect the integrity of the hydrological system and the City's surface water management system. In addition, wetlands preservation and sensible land use management are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 18 within the City. That being said, such preservation and conservation efforts need to be balanced with the right to develop one's property. Because Rice Creek Watershed District, the local regulatory agency governing wetlands development, has approved the plat and alteration plans, and because the lots all exceed 20,000 square feet with significant dedication of easements, staff believes the variance for the reduced lot widths would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning Regulations. 7. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. It is not expected that the proposed variance for reduced lot widths would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Director Ericson indicated that Staff had stopped short of saying they are wholeheartedly in support of the variance because there are wetlands and the wetlands provide an important function to the City's ecosystem. He then indicated that Staff had drafted the two resolutions because Staff feels that a case could be made in support of the variance but it is a very subjective review and the Planning Commission felt that the hardship simply was not there. Council Member Thomas indicated she did not see where the hardship requirement had been met i and noted the City is not denying Mr. Harstad the right to develop his property in accordance with City Code. Acting Mayor Stigney asked how many sanitary sewer lines were put in. Director Ericson indicated that the sewer was in for 10 lots. Council Member Stigney questioned whether the sewer lines would line up properly if the development were reduced to eight lots. Director Ericson indicated that four or five lines maybe lined up properly if the development was reduced to eight lots. Council Member Thomas indicated that the utilities were installed in 1963 but noted that the number was not based on an actual approval it was based on a proposed plat. Based on that, she noted that she does not feel that using the utilities already being installed at the property as a basis for hardship is appropriate. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5659, a Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission's Denial of a Variance for Reduced Lot Widths for the Proposed Longview Estates Major Subdivision. Ayes - 2 (Marty/Thomas) Nays - 2 (Stigney/Quick) Motion failed. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting • December 10, 2001 Page 19 Director Ericson suggested tabling the mater until the next City Council meeting for consideration before a full Council. City Attorney Riggs indicated that Council would need to take action on the matter at the January 7, 2002 work session due to the 60 day time limit. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Table this Matter to the January 7, 2002 Work Session. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 689, Revising Chapter 512 of the City Code Relating to Tobacco Products. Acting Chief Brennan indicated he had noticed the School District, NW Youth and Family Services, Minnesota Institute of Public Health and the County Attorney for this hearing as well as those establishments with tobacco licenses in the City. Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. Tom Manke indicated that his store has failed two compliance tests during the last nine years and stated that whether the penalty is $5.00 or $5,000 it would not change how he trains his employees. He then explained that they go over the laws monthly with existing employees and carefully train new employees. He further explained that people that are of age and/or parents purchase cigarettes and hand them to the underage kids. Ian Anderson of 5380 Cliffton Drive indicated that kids are out on the streets smoking and asking for cigarettes and the police drive by and do not do anything about it. He then suggested that the authorities need to pull their weight to get kids to stop, including the School District and the police department. Paul Fedor of 9001 Stratford Crossing in Brooklyn Park indicated he was a resident of Mounds View for 29 years before moving to Brooklyn Park and he operates Fedor's Market and has gone through a lot of changes and dealt with many issues on cigarette licensing. He then indicated that his employees are told that if he fails a compliance check because of one of them they will be fired immediately. Mr. Fedor commented that he feels that increasing the fee for compliance violations does not solve the problem. He then stated he feels that more time should be invested in young kids to tell them and beat into their minds that smoking will kill you. He also indicated that they ask kids who are smoking to leave because they do not want anyone to think that the cigarettes were purchased from their business. Mr. Fedor said he would hate to see his name as failing a compliance check but knows as they go along they eventually will fail. r Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 20 . Chuck Durand of 2732 Highway 10 indicated that they do everything they can to stop smoking by kids but they are forced to hire young kids because the pay scale does not allow college graduates and there are signs everywhere drilling it into the employees but it is hard when an adult comes in and buys a pack of cigarettes and you see the adult hand the cigarettes to the kids and there is nothing you can do about it. He then suggested that more needs to be done to teach prevention rather than putting the burden solely on the retailers. Acting Chief Brennan indicated a representative from NW Youth and Family Services was to be at the meeting to discuss penalties for minors caught with tobacco products. He then indicated that one of the comments he has heard most prevalently is a suggestion toward diversion. He then explained that NW Youth and Family Services indicated there is a youth diversion program that deals with parents and the youth together and then follows up with a seminar and subsequent offenses are handled with community service. Ian Anderson of 5380 Cliffton Drive indicated he was 13 years old when he was "busted" for smoking and required to take a four hour class with no smoke breaks. He then asked what happened to that kind of deterrent. He further indicated that more than half the students he hung around with quit smoking because of that diversion program. Mr. Anderson indicated that the School District was doing a good job but dropped it and he feels the City, parents, and the School District should get involved. He also commented that he had offered to teach a seminar on alcoholism because he does not drink because his mother died from alcoholism. Perry Lofquist of 450 Manor Drive in Spring Lake Park indicated that NW Youth and Family Services has a diversion program that the police and the City can send kids to and the kids are required to pay $40.00. He then explained the program and noted that they try to stay away from the health aspect of smoking because young kids do not think that they are going to die. Council Member Quick asked how many kids NW Youth and Family Services sees for tobacco diversion programs per year. Mr. Lofquist indicated that the program sees 300 to 350 kids per year for tobacco diversion and then indicated that shoplifting is the most common followed by drugs and alcohol. He then indicated that they are trying to fight society because a lot of parents feel that if all their kids do is smoke that is nothing to worry about. Mr. Lofquist indicated the largest referral agency for diversion is the court system followed by Roseville's Police Department, New Brighton, Mounds View and then St. Anthony. Acting Mayor Stigney closed the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. • Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 21 Council Member Thomas explained that some of the changes being made are not only changes in penalties but also a significant change to possession for the minors which was not there before. She then asked if possession of tobacco was an administrative offense. Acting Chief Brennan indicated that the Ordinance would give the City the option of diversion rather than writing out an administrative offense. Council Member Thomas asked what language would be inserted in the Ordinance from the public hearing. Council Member Quick asked what the penalty is for parents. Acting Chief Brennan indicated it was a misdemeanor. Council Member Quick asked if there is a penalty for allowing minors to consume tobacco on your property. Acting Chief Brennan indicated there was not. Council Member Thomas indicated that these changes give the retailer a defense that they did not have before because, in most cases, the retailers are working hard to make sure their establishments are in compliance with the tobacco ordinance. Council Member Thomas suggested a $50.00 fine for someone who purchases, possesses or consumes under age18, or the diversionary program which costs $40.00. Acting Chief Brennan indicated it would be better to get the kids into the diversion program and said he feels that should be the first priority. Council Member Thomas asked what the fees for a first and second offense would be in court Acting Chief Brennan indicated he was told that the court usually assesses a $75.00 fine when it hears a case and he assumes that would be for a first offense. Council Member Marty suggested requiring that the first offense should be a ticket to the diversion program rather than offering options. Council Member Thomas asked how many repeat kids NW Youth and Family Services sees in its diversion program. Mr. Lofquist indicated that approximately 14% of the kids are seen a second time. He then indicated that the consequences become more extreme as the kids go through the system. • It was the consent of Council to add a penalty of $50.00 for the second offense and another ticket to the diversion program. Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 22 Acting Mayor Stigney asked whether the schools handle the first offense. Acting Chief Brennan indicated that violations on school property are a misdemeanor and the first two offense are handled by the School District and the third offense is handled by the County Attorney. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Table this Matter to the Next Council Meeting. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty asked if the matter could be put on the Consent Agenda. City Attorney Riggs indicated that the matter required a roll call vote. Council Member Marty thanked Mr. Lofquist for coming. C. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 691, Amending Chapter 502 (Intoxicating Liquor) and 503 (3.2 Percent Beer) of the Municipal Code Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that this was before Council as a result of work • session discussion concerning Chapters 502 and 503 as they relate to charitable gambling. She then indicated that Council had requested that language requiring nonprofits to have a registered office m Mounds View before they can conduct chartable gambling was deleted and a 10% fund to be contributed to the City was added. John Wharton of the Lions Club indicated that he is opposed to the Ordinance change because the Lions always make a point to make sure the money stays local and if the City makes this change it opens up the City to outside gambling operations that would not benefit Mounds View. He then indicated there is a large health care society that is very aggressive and holds 130 licenses in the state of Minnesota. Council Member Thomas explained that it was not the intent to take out the requirement to be part of the City and said it is the intent to redo the entire Ordinance in January. She then noted that there is a Mounds View group that is not allowed to function in Mounds View and that is why the Ordinance is being changed. Mr. Wharton asked whether the City was aware that there are specific allowed uses for the funds and that all expenditures need to be reported to the Gambling Control Board. Council Member Thomas indicated the matter would be up for discussion again in January. Brian Blaziak of 2361 Laporte Drive indicated that the Lions do use the funds for the community • and all charitable gambling benefits this City through fire, police, the food shelf, school projects, Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 23 and scholarships and if the Ordinance is altered in this way it could stop the ability to give to the Community. Gretchen Waldenbridge of 8072 Long Lake Road indicated that changing the Ordinance would open up a window of opportunity for other organizations to come in and will not benefit the residents of this City. She then asked when they would have the opportunity to have input into the discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Introduce Ordinance 691, Amending Chapter 502 and 503 of the Municipal Code. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty suggested that, in light of comments brought forward tonight, that Staff gather further information for discussion at a Council work session. City Administrator Miller indicated the matter would be on the agenda for the first work session of the year. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Direct Staff to Acquire all State Forms for All Charitable Gambling Organizations in the City of Mounds View for Review for the Last Ten (10) Years. Council Member Marty asked why the mformahon was necessary. Council Member Quick indicated that Council had asked for further information and he had never seen a form. Council Member Thomas indicated that she would like information on the regulations included for discussion in time for the second reading. Mr. Wharton indicated that the state only requires forms to be held for three and a half years. Council Member Quick amended his motion to ask Staff to obtain whatever the state has on file. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. Consideration of Resolution 5651, a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision of the Property Located at 7841 Spring Lake Road; Planning Case MI01-002. Planner Atkinson indicated that the applicant had requested a minor subdivision of the property located at 7841 Spring Lake Road to create a 30,474 square foot buildable lot with the majority . fronting on an unimproved portion of Knollwood Drive and the remainder on Oakwood Drive. He then indicated that the Planning Commission had requested that a portion of land be Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 24 dedicated for a future cul-de-sac to allow for the subdivision of the property to the south prior to approval of this matter. He further indicated that a park dedication fee of $2,346.00 and separate easement documents are required. Council Member Marty indicated he had raised some concerns regarding the cul-de-sac because he thought that the cul-de-sac needed to be there prior to development because of the need for a turn around for emergency vehicles. Planner Atkinson indicated that the Uniform Fire Code requires that a dead end of less than 150 feet in length does not require a turn around and this dead end is 135 feet. Council Member Marty questioned whether the property owner would be moving the gate. Planner Atkinson indicated that the Resolution requires that the property owner move the gate and recommends that the temporary driveway be located as far south as possible to use as little of the access drive as possible. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5651, a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision of the Property Located at 7841 Spring Lake Road. City Attorney Riggs indicated that language would be added to the Resolution to allow Staff to resolve any easement issues to ensure that the appropriate title work is prepared: Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carned. D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 690, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1001 Entitled "Building Code" Community Development Director Ericson explained that this is the second reading of Ordinance 690 and noted Council had discussed the matter with Kathi Osmonson at the work session and the language concerning fire alarm installations was deleted from the Ordinance. He then noted that the Ordinance would become effective 30 days after adoption. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 690, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1001 Entitled "Building Code". Council Member Thomas thanked Director Ericson for the extra information. ROLL CALL: Quick, Stigney, Thomas, Marty, Sonterre (not present). Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. F. Just and Correct Claims Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 25 Finance Director Hansen explained that the Just and Correct Claims were placed under Council Business to discuss the format of the report. Finance Director Hansen indicated that at the November 26, 2001 Council Meeting it was decided that the check to URS would not be released. He then indicated that he felt that Council had agreed at the work session to release the check and asked if that was the case. Finance Director Hansen indicated that the next regularly scheduled Council Meeting was not until January 14, 2001 which is five weeks away and the City would be late on some of its bills and would incur penalties so he asked for permission from Council to do a claims list in the last week of December and one for January 14 and present them both to Council on January 14, 2001 to avoid penalties. Council Member Thomas indicated that Council had decided to call to order on January 7, 2001 to discuss the Harstad variance and could approve claims at that time. Council Member Marty indicated he liked the third format provided by Mr. Hansen. Council Member Thomas indicated she would be fine with either two or three. Council Member Quick indicated he preferred option two. Acting Mayor Stigney indicated he was not sure whether he preferred two or three. Finance Director Hansen indicated he would continue providing versions two and three until a determination is reached. Council Member Thomas indicated she thought Council had decided to hold the check to URS until they came back with a new plan that was adjusted. City Administrator Miller indicated she understood that the City would release the check for the work done to date. She then indicated that the check was only part of the fees set aside and before the City would pay the remainder it would require changes to the proposal. Council Member Quick asked what portion of the work was completed. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that 60 or 65% of the work was done. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the check was for a little over 10% and URS has done 60% of the work. Council Member Thomas agreed that for coming to the meeting and agreeing to answer questions and provide a better plan she would show leniency. • Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 26 Council Member Marty indicated that releasing the check would go a long way toward maintaining a good working relationship. Council Member Marty questioned the cell phone usage for Bob Nelson as he had never seen the name before. Acting Chief Brennan indicated he is the School Resource Officer that teaches the dare program and explained that the contract requires that he have a cell phone. He then explained that he was using the police department cell phone but was unable to obtain a cell in most of the school building so he had to sign up with a different carrier. He then indicated that other options were purchased but stated the reimbursement request is only for the amounts allowed by the City. Council Member Marty indicated he would like information on Check Number 107174 for expense reimbursement. Finance Director Hansen indicated he would provide the information with the packet that goes out at the end of the week. Council Member Marty questioned whether the fees paid to Kennedy and Graven on the Highway 10 billboard would be recovered from the billboard company. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the funds would be recovered from the billboard company. Acting Mayor Stigney questioned whether repair of the public works garage door was a product of improper installation and, if so, if the City should be paying for them to fix it. Finance Director Hansen indicated he was not sure. Acting Mayor Stigney requested that Finance Director Hansen provide him with information concerning the repair and whether or not the City could have requested that the company repair it at their own expense due to improper installation. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve Just and Correct Claims. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council recessed at 10:00 p.m. Council reconvened at 10:08 p.m. G. Consideration of Resolution 5671 Adopting the 2002 Property Tax Levy and General Fund Budget • Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 27 Finance Director Hansen indicated that numerous budget discussions and a truth in taxation hearing have been held and Resolution 5671 would adopt the general fund budget and proposed property tax levy. Finance Director Hansen indicated that he made some changes to the budget due to personnel changes. Council Member Marty indicated that he had understood that part of the reasoning behind needing an Assistant City Administrator was so that the City could save the $8000 per year on the contract for minute taking. Council Member Thomas explained that the discussion concerning minutes was related to the clerical position that was considered and not approved, not the Assistant to the City Administrator position. Council Member Marty questioned what the "chemically treated" treatment and cleaning of Silver View Pond entailed. Finance Director Hansen indicated he had spoken to Steve Dazinski who explained that the treatment is primarily for algae growth in the summer and a chemical that is not handled by parks personnel is used. Council Member Thomas asked if this is the only pond that is treated that way. Finance Director Hansen indicated that this pond is the only item that the treatment is budgeted for. Council Member Marty questioned whether a dollar amount should be inserted into the chemical per gallon section. Finance Director Hansen indicated the dollar amount should be there and it works out to $1.30 per gallon but noted that the actual price may vary. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5671, a Resolution Adopting the 2002 Property Tax Levy and General Fund Budget. Acting Mayor Stigney commented that this budget talks about rhetoric that residents have to pay more because the City is not getting the same amount in intergovernmental fees. He then pointed out that Mounds View residents pay, in addition to property taxes, a water meter fee, water service maintenance fee, street light fee, surface water management fee, a sanitary sewer fee of $47.00 per quarter, any special assessments for street resurfacing and a franchise fee for gas and electric use that brings in $400,000. He then commented that he does not feel that the City has made any attempt to lower the levy from the preliminary amount and has added to Staff by adding a full time building official, the Assistant City Administrator position, and the proposed • full time cable coordinator. He also indicated that he questions the money spent on national Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 28 • • • conferences and noted the Mayor just returned from his second national convention of the year because the City has no policy on it. Acting Mayor Stigney indicated that it is interesting to note that in the previous year the City went from $17,236 in 1999 to 2000 and when levy limits went away the City went to $420,895 in 2000 to 2001. He indicated that it is interesting to note that intergovernmental fees actually increased by $67,000 and there was still a maximum rate of 25% increase in the property tax levy. He further indicated that the City is using the maximum allowable levy and he does not feel that Council is doing enough to lower it. Council Member Quick asked what the budget started at when it was first presented. City Administrator Miller indicated the budget was $438,000 more than what is currently before Council. Council Member Quick indicated that $438,000 was cut from the first proposal and said he feels Council is doing a good job of keeping costs down and services up. He then indicated that the City could cut out services to save money but said he did not think that would be appropriate and residents would be calling to complain about not receiving services they are accustomed to receiving. He further commented that he feels the residents are getting a good deal for the amount they are taxed and told Council Member Stigney that if it is such a burden to live in Mounds View he should put up a for sale sign and move out. Acting Mayor Stigney clarified that he feels the City is using increased revenue from the state from last year as a baseline for this year to force the taxpayers to pay the maximum the state will allow. He then commented that he would move at his own discretion. Council Member Quick indicated that if he had as many problems with the way the City was run as Council Member Stigney did he would move out of the City. Acting Mayor Stigney commented that he wished Council Member Quick would move out of the City. The other Council Members in attendance asked that the conversation move on. Council Member Marty indicated he wanted to point out that last year the main expenses or expenditures were the hiring of two additional police officers and noted that residents had said that is what they wanted. Council Member Marty commented that the City did not approve keeping the taxes high as the norm but stated it is a product of the fact that the City did not get the state funding it was accustomed to receiving due to changes made by the governor. He then commented that other cities are doing the same thing. Mounds View City Council December 10, 200] Regular Meeting Page 29 Council Member Thomas suggested there is more work that could be done on the budget and indicated that the increase in health care for employees was beyond Council control and there were other issues that Council was forced to deal with during the course of the year. She then noted that she feels that Council has done a great job of providing a workable budget that is under 3% and under the rate of inflation. Council Member Quick thanked Staff for the extra time and efforts they put into providing a workable budget. Council Member Marty asked if it would be possible to start a little earlier on the budget discussion next year. Council Member Thomas explained that usually budget discussions begin in May and this year they did not begin until August due to the delay in the legislature. Acting Mayor Stigney indicated it was interesting to note that at the last budget session he had asked Staff to look at their budgets to see if they could reduce them by 1 % and not one Staff member has responded to that request. Acting Mayor Stigney indicated that this Council voted to approve the 80% health care costs. He then noted that Council just approved a 4% cost of living increase for employees. Ayes - 3 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried. H. Resolution 5672 Adopting the 2002 Budgets for Funds Other than the General Fund. • Finance Director Hansen indicated that he had made some changes and reviewed those changes with Council. He indicated that the most expensive option for cable personnel was added to the budget. Finance Director Hansen indicated that the public works director had started at step 1 which resulted in a reduction in that budgeted amount. He also noted that the water and sewer amounts were tied together. Finance Director Hansen indicated that there were two changes not in the memorandum, the first was he discovered that the repair of the exhaust hood over the stoves in the kitchen at the banquet center was not included and that amount was $2,600 and the second error was that the 15% adjusted down for the audit was removed from other budgets but was not added to the golf course budget and that amount increased by $4,500. Finance Director Hansen indicated that the transfers between funds did not balance in the 2001 budget. He noted the vehicle and equipment fund had a transfer out to water and sewer for vehicles in the amount of $5,400 but the water and sewer fund showed it received $1,500. He Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 30 then explained he had looked at the numbers and set the transfer amount to vehicles and equipment of $27,000 and a transfer of $2,500 to sewer. Finance Director Hansen indicated that he had set the amounts for future vehicle and equipment needs at $15,000 for each fund. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5672, a Resolution Adopting the 2002 Budgets for Funds Other than the General Fund Council Member Marty commented that it is interesting to note that, in reviewing previous years' budgets for the golf course, with all the alleged improprieties this year the budgets are really very similar to what they have been in the past. Council Member Marty questioned why the golf course remedial lawsuit improvements fund was zeroed out for this year's budget. City Administrator Miller indicated that those dollars were for the cost of bringing the golf course up to par and that lawsuit no longer exists. Council Member Marty indicated that it was his recollection that there were more steps that needed to be completed to keep the course from reverting back to its previous condition. City Administrator Miller indicated she had worked with Ken Mathison and he has reviewed all the numbers and he feels the dollars, as budgeted, are adequate. Council Member Marty explained that sofas and televisions were coming up through the fairways and that is how the City got involved in the lawsuit and he is concerned that the situation may happen again if all the steps to solve the problem are not completed. City Administrator Miller indicated that the maintenance dollars are in the budget that the golf course staff thought were necessary. She then indicated that the line item that was zeroed out for the coming year was set up for that lawsuit and that lawsuit is completed. Acting Mayor Stigney commented that he felt there would be some future improvement in the budgets if it were a goal of the Council to strive for more efficient services and operations. Council Member Quick indicated that for the 17 years he has been on the Council it has been a goal of the City to do things more efficiently and cost effective. He then commented that Council Member Stigney should consider the community as a whole when making decisions as a Council Member because it seems that the Council could work to do something that benefited the majority of the City and, if Council Member Stigney did not like the idea, he would not support it. Council Member Marty commented that he feels differing opinions are good for discussion purposes and even though Council does not always agree the Members are all working for the Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 31 • • betterment of the entire community. He then asked if the cable technician would be discussed at a later date. City Administrator Miller indicated that the matter would be discussed sometime during the course of the coming year. Council Member Marty noted that even if funds are set aside the money does not have to be spent. He then commented that he feels it is time to discuss the sewer fees because he does not feel everyone in the City should pay a flat rate because usage varies. Council Member Thomas asked Council to leave the editorial comments off as there was a lot of business to accomplish and it was 10:45 p.m. Acting Mayor Stigney indicated he felt the discussions were necessary because if saving the taxpayers money has always been a goal of this Council he wonders why it was never listed as a goal and had not come up for discussion at any retreat. Council Member Quick commented that Council Member Stigney's version of cost effectiveness is to cut everything rather than plan for the long term. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Call the Question. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Ayes - 3 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried. I. Resolution 5654 Authorizing the City Administrator to Sign the Engagement Letter Dated December 3, 2001 from MMKR for the Provision of Auditing Services for the Years 2001, 2002 and 2003. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5654, Authorizing the City Administrator to Sign the Engagement Letter Dated December 3, 2001 from MMKR for the Provision of Auditing Services for the Years 2001, 2002 and 2003. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. J. Review Esultant Web Services Contract • Jeffrey Schissler of 2331 University Avenue SE addressed Council and explained how the proposal before Council was arrived at. Mr. Schissler indicated he had been given verbal authorization from Mr. Hammerschmidt to proceed with the project because anything under $15,000 did not need Council approval. Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 32 Mr. Schissler indicated that 40 to 50% of the e-commerce programming has been done and only about 15% of work on the actual website. He then commented that his company would like to be paid for the services provided. City Administrator Miller asked how many hours the Company had put into the e-commerce side of the project. Mr. Schissler indicated that approximately 35 hours had been spent on the programming for the e-commerce portion of the site. City Administrator Miller confirmed that Council was not interested in the e-commerce portion of the project. She then indicated that she had presented Council with three options as had been discussed with the City Attorney. Council Member Thomas told Mr. Schissler that Council is in a difficult position and then questioned why the company had proceeded with the project without having finalized the contract. Mr. Schissler indicated he was told by Mr. Hammerschmidt that he did not need Council approval of any expenditures under $15,000 as he intended to use the carpet budget for the website. He also noted that approximately 95% of his projects are not governed by contracts and said that he was pressured to have the site up and running by the April 1, 2001 deadline as printed in the newsletter. Council Member Marty asked how many other government agencies or entities Mr. Schissler had done work for. He then noted the contract was presented to the golf course committee but never made it past a Council work session. Council Member Marty indicated there was no action to approve or disapprove the contract and noted that the website sounded like it would be beneficial but Council never really discussed it and had not approved the contract. Mr. Schissler indicated that he has done over 1,000 website projects and does some work for nonprofits and for Hennepin County. Mr. Schissler indicated that he was led to believe that Mr. Hammerschmidt had the approval for the $15,000 without needing Council approval. City Administrator Miller indicated that it is unfortunate that work was done and stated that she feels that any discussion concerning whether or not to proceed with the website contract should be tabled until the new golf course manager has been hired. Council Member Marty recommended that Mr. Schissler check back with Council after the new golf course manager is onboard. Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 33 Mr. Schissler indicated that he felt his company was entitled to some compensation for the work done on the project because he was led to believe that the project had been authorized to the amount of $15,000. He then indicated he would like to finish the project for the City. Council Member Thomas indicated that she was not comfortable agreeing to the contract or deciding not to proceed until she had more information as to the scope of the project. Council Member Quick commented that Council has been forced to deal with a lot of infractions and has had to sort through them as they come up. He then stated he agreed with Council Member Thomas that more information is needed before determining how to proceed. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Table the Rest of the Meeting to the Next Council Meeting. Council Member Marty commented that he had no corrections to the minutes and asked whether other Council Members did. He then suggested amending the motion to approve the minutes along with tabling the rest of the agenda. Council Member Thomas accepted his friendly amendment. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 • 9. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 10. REPORTS None. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion carried. A. November 26, 2001 City Council Minutes. MOTIONISECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Approve the Minutes of the Monday, November 26, 2001 Council Meeting as Presented. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council recessed to the EDA meeting at 11:13 p.m. Council reconvened at 11:17 p.m. and moved to the closed session. Acting Mayor Stigney indicated that Council would adjourn from the closed session. Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 34 12. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION Council recessed to the closed session at 11:17 p.m. 13. Next Council Work Session: Monday, January 7, 2002 Next Council Meeting: Monday, January 14, 2002 14. ADJOURNMENT Acting Mayor Stigney adjourned the meeting at p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 10, 2001 Please sign in N,~~!~TE AUDRF:SS ,F~ ff .~_ ~ e ~~~ C:Admin.resolution.sign-in sheet MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please sign in NAME ADD~ZESS -'" "s rre a , ~, s ~ ~ ~ ~; s ~ c ~,~~~1 ~,~ ~ s7~,:~ ~~~ a~ l~Y ~~ ~ ~ v i ~~ SbZ ~ ~r~~-~u, r; f.'s C r.v b ~ rye w ~o ~': y C:Admin.resolution.sign-in sheet