Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2002/07/08PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~ " Regular Meeting July 8, 2002 .. _ g~/~~ ~ ~ Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:03 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, July 8, 2002 City Council Agenda. • MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the July 8, 2002, City Council Agenda as presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. PUBLIC INPUT None. 5. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS Council Member Marty noted there were payments for three subdivisions and then said he wanted to stress that Council had asked Staff to seek repayment. Mayor Sonterre noted that looking at the claims for payment there were a number of reimbursable items. He then indicated Council had asked Staff to determine a method of notating on the claims which were to be reimbursed and asked if there had been any progress in that regard. Finance Director Hansen indicated he and Mr. Ericson had discussed the matter and he had developed a spreadsheet that is not yet finished. He then indicated that there is an issue as to what point in the process Staff should seek reimbursement from the developers. Council Member Marty indicated he had asked about the golf course billboard and the City is seeking reimbursement from Clear Channel. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 2 Council Member Marty indicated Check Number 108721 was for Labor Relations Associates and said it has been a couple of months since the contract was settled and he would like to know if this will be the final bill from them. Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated she was not sure if this would be the final bill on this matter and noted that the City has an ongoing relationship with Labor Relations Associates so it is likely the City will receive invoices periodically. Finance Director Hansen indicated he had reviewed this matter when Council Member Marty called and was unable to determine if this would be the last invoice received for the contract matter. Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated there may be some contract issues that continued past the last date on the invoice. Council Member Marty indicated he had a question with the check for the League of Minnesota Cities training. Council Member Thomas indicated she had decided to attend the training a lot later than most people and the fees for the other attendees had already been processed. • Council Member Stigney commented that the triggering point for billing developers should be when the City is invoiced. Council Member Stigney indicated there were two checks to Kennedy and Graven one for the Kessel matter and one for the Hammerschmidt matter. He then commented he thought those matters were completed. City Attorney Riggs indicated that the City has an appeal pending on one of the matters with the state and a final decision was reached on the other. Council Member Stigney asked what the City was billed for. City Attorney Riggs indicated he had reviewed the decision and completed the final paper work on the Kessel matter and the Hammerschmidt matter is in a pending status awaiting a decision from the state. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Contractors Licenses for Approval Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 3 B. Resolution 5801 Authorizing and Pledging Support for Voting Equipment Grant Application C. Resolution 5796 Approving the Contract Award for Pest Control at City Hall D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., July 22, 2002, to Consider Removal of Jakes' Parcel from Theater Planned Unit Development Agreement E. Consideration of Resolution 5798 Rescinding Resolution 5784 Approving Appointment of Bruce Madsen to the Planning Commission Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated she would like to make a comment during discussion. Council Member Stigney requested that Item C be removed for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A, B, D, and E as Presented. Assistant City Administrator Reed explained that she had been called by the state and been informed that she needed to reduce the grant request to $7,650 which is the amount of the hardware. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • Council Member Stigney asked that the Consent Agenda be read. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Item C as Presented. Council Member Stigney commented he is concerned with approving a new contract for pest control when it seems the existing contract has not worked. He then indicated there has been a spider and ant problem that Orkin has not been able to control and asked whether there is a guarantee if Will Kill is unable to take care of the problem. Public Works Director Lee indicated the contract would have a clause that, if there is a recurring bug issue, they will come out and deal with it free of charge. Council Member Stigney commented that the past pest control service has been unsuccessful and suggested getting ant bait traps because they are cheap and effective before getting another professional. Public Works Director Lee indicated the City has a history with Will Kill and there have been no problems at the Community Center. Council Member Stigney clarified there has not been a problem since the food storage issue was resolved. Public Works Director Lee indicated he would advise against not having a pest control contract. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 4 • Mayor Sonterre asked if it was necessary to have two separate contracts with Will Kill, one for the Community Center and one for City Hall. Public Works Director Lee indicated there would need to be two completely separate contracts and noted there would be no cost savings to the City to have one contract. Ayes - 4 Nays -1(Stigney) Motion carried. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to Consider the Martin Harstad Request to Rezone 66 Lots within the Red Oak Estates No. 3 Subdivision from R-1, Single Family Residential, to R-3 Medium Density Residential. Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed his staff report with Council and provided Council with a history of the property in question. Director Ericson indicated that Martin Harstad, representing Keith Harstad had requested rezoning of the lots originally platted in 1974. Director Ericson indicated the lots were originally platted in 1974 and at that time the applicant received a special use permit to construct townhomes in an R-1 district. Director Ericson indicated that in 1977 the City's zoning code underwent a revision and, while the zoning did not change, townhomes were no longer allowed in an R-1 district. Director Ericson indicated that in 1983 the Harstads had applied for a rezoning to R-3 to continue with construction but that request was denied. Director Ericson indicated the Harstads had applied for building permits in 1995 but they were denied because townhomes are not allowed in an R-1 district. Shortly thereafter litigation ensued and it continues. Director Ericson indicated the Planning Commission had reviewed this request had held a public hearing to take comment from residents. He then indicated that, based on resident feedback and an assessment that the project would have a negative impact on the neighborhood the Planning Commission has recommended denial. Director Ericson indicated the Planning Commission's primary reason for denial is that it would adversely impact the neighborhood and, with regard to those accessing off of Greenwood Drive, • would alter the existing character of the neighborhood. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 5 Director Ericson indicated the Planning Commission took into consideration the zoning and the surrounding neighborhood as well as looking at the Comprehensive Plan while making their recommendation. Director Ericson commented that any development would have an impact to the neighborhood, even single-family homes but the request for 66 townhomes would be a significant impact. Director Ericson indicated the Planning Commission had looked at the City's land use plan and the property has three designations, medium density residential, low-density residential, and open space natural. Director Ericson indicated that Staff had made the assertion that impact is inevitable and said that Staff did not feel that it would be inappropriate to approve townhomes for the Lots fronting H2 given that it is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and there is high density use across the street. Staff also took into consideration that H2 will be reconstructed. He then said that he would not say that is Staff's recommendation but that was Staff's assessment. Director Ericson indicated there has been discussion about legal standing and whether this application should be considered. He then said there are six townhome owners on H2 and one townhome owner who may speak to this issue has brought up to the Commission that a letter was drafted in 1998 by the City Attorney in response to a rezoning request that states that any rezoning of the property needs to be signed off on by those six existing townhome owners. He further indicated that letter was drafted m response to a rezone of all the land wrthm the Red Oaks subdivision and this request is a rezoning request for the 66 individual lots, not including the common area. Director Ericson indicated it is a subtle difference but in the eyes of the law the letter does not apply to this rezoning request. Director Ericson indicated there had been a lot of discussion regarding wetlands on the site and indicated that, should a rezoning be approved there are many requirements that the developer would need to meet prior to the issuance of a building permit. Director Ericson indicated residents have been attending meetings and Staff appreciates the turnout. Director Ericson indicated Staff had provided four options for Council consideration. The first is to deny the rezoning in whole. The second option is direct Staff to draft an Ordinance that would approve the 66-lot rezoning including the common space and open areas. The third is to deny the rezoning for those lots fronting on Greenwood Drive and approve those fronting on H2, including Lot 74 which includes a portion of the common space. The fourth option would be to table the rezoning for further information. • Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 6 . Director Ericson indicated that Staff is not recommending any options as any of the four are appropriate and after hearing public testimony he is hoping to have some direction from Council as to how to proceed with this matter. Council Member Stigney asked where Lot 74 was. Director Ericson pointed out on the map the location of Lot 74. Council Member Thomas clarified that option two would not require the townhome owners to sign off. Director Ericson said that is correct. Mayor Sonterre indicated there is a significant difference in density in twin homes from townhomes and asked if there had been discussions with regard to twinhomes or is the request restricted to townhomes. Director Ericson indicated that once the application is submitted the discussion is restricted to townhomes. He then indicated that the Planning Commission had asked Staff to discuss twinhomes with the applicant between the two Commission meetings and Mr. Harstad indicated he would like to have townhomes. He further indicated he had seen drawings of upscale twinhomes in the past but that is not what has been requested. Mayor Sonterre indicated there is a major concern with the ongoing water level issues for residents on Louisa and then asked for a history on the attempts to remedy those issues. Director Ericson indicated he had not been with the City long enough to have a complete history on the situation but noted that when the development was approved by the City there was to be a drainage Swale at the back of the property to provide drainage and storm water runoff to the area adjacent to Long Lake Road where there is a culvert that runs south and that was never completed and as a result there have been issues with drainage that should have been addressed back in 1974 that were not. He then indicated that there has been significant tree growth in the area where the swale was to be created and noted there will be significant tree loss to correct the problem. He further indicated this has been the wettest June on record so there is water where there normally would not be but said there is a drainage issue in the area to be resolved. Director Ericson commented that Mounds View is a wet community as a matter of course and residents who are the high spot on the block could have water in basements. He then said that he did not think the drainage issues could be entirely blamed on a development from 1974 because there is a high water table in the community and many residents have sump pumps running constantly. Mayor Sonterre requested that even though this is an emotional subject that residents limit the • duplication of comment if at all possible. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 7 • Julian Sprunck of 2649 Louisa Avenue handed out pictures taken of his property with standing water and noted those pictures were taken in three different years. He then said he had attempted to obtain pictures of the current situation because the water is knee high but those pictures did not work out. Mr. Sprunck indicated the Mayor had asked him to confirm comments made to him by a Rice Creek inspector in 1998 and said he had done so. He then indicated that last week Barbara Haake from Rice Creek and Lee Daleiden, the new inspector for Rice Creek were out to his house to review the situation. They spent two hours determining what the 6-inch pad would do. He further indicated that it was explained to him that, from the floor of the underground water table there is a measurement that goes up either 24 or 36 inches and, if it is 36 inches, that would raise the ground level by 6 inches which would cause flooding to him and 11 others on Louisa and three others on Sunnyside Road for a total of 15 properties. Mr. Sprunck went on to say that Rice Creek reviewed materials from Mr. Ericson provided at the Planning Commission meeting and it appears as though there is no room for onsite drainage. They indicated that, depending on underground floor of the water table, the ground would have to be raised by six inches and noted that, at the present time, no representations no questions and no applications have been directed to Rice Creek. If an application is made then all the testing must be done including establishing the floor of the ground water table and soil borings because of the possibility of a peat bog. ould e anted but Mr. Sprunck indicated that if all applications are m order the approval w b gr would be good for only 90 days. Mr. Sprunck indicated that Rice Creek had told him that they are more active than ever before and are extremely concerned about the quantity and quality of water and drainage issues. Mr. Sprunck handed out a packet of information for each Council Member. In the packet there was a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission from Judy Rowley and Mr. Sprunck pointed out that the letter states that the residential area is not designed to carry the amount of runoff resulting from multiple dwellings. Mr. Sprunck indicated that Mr. Ericson had said earlier in this meeting that the part of the property fronting on H2 would be compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He then read an excerpt from a report drafted by Mr. Jopke dated December 30, 1997 which stated the opposite opinion indicating that the entire site would need to be replatted. Mr. Sprunck commented that Mr. Ericson's cover letter indicates that the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended to reflect medium density residential and said, for obvious reasons, he would be opposed to amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sprunck closed by saying that, in his view, to build townhomes to the tune of 66 is • detrimental to the neighborhood and adversely affects 15 properties. Three on Sunnyside and 12 on the north side of Louisa Avenue. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 8 • Mr. Sprunck said he does not want his home flooded. He then said, in the words of a former first lady of this land he would say in regards to townhomes, "just say no." Mayor Sonterre asked if there have been any discussion with Rice Creek concerning the proposed swale. Mr. Sprunck said there was no discussion of that but Rice Creek did review all of the materials from the June 5 and June 19, 2002 meetings and there was concern that given the present platting there appeared to be no room for onsite drainage and that is when Ms. Haake indicated Rice Creek is concerned with the quality and quantity of water in the area. Council Member Marty indicated he had spent a lot of time at City Hall a few years ago looking through boxes of material on Red Oaks Two and Three and one of the things he came up with was when the initial 6 townhomes were completed there was to have been a ditch dug in the back of those lawns along Louisa and Sunnyside and Harstad was not able to get his equipment back there because the ground was too soft and was waiting until it dried up but that was the last time it was ever addressed. He then said that the project was never finished and that is why there are drainage issues now. Mayor Sonterre clarified that the comment was made by Keith Harstad. i Director Encson said he agreed 100 /o with Mr. Sprunck that the City is depending upon Rice Creek Watershed to make sure that whatever happens out there the drainage and water quality i protected. He then said that the assessment that there does not appear to be detention ponding room or storm water management room is correct but that is not the issue tonight as Rice Creek would make a recommendation concerning that and the developer would need to amend his pla to comply with the recommendation. Director Ericson explained the difference in his report and Mr. Jopke's report is that the Comprehensive Plan had been amended with regard to the zoning designation for the property. 's n Mayor Sonterre asked if Rice Creek had jurisdiction over the entire area. Director Ericson said that any time a development exceeds 2.5 acres Rice Creek is charged with reviewing and making recommendations concerning storm water management. Lee Watkins of 2b09 Louisa Avenue indicated his property abuts the property in question and said towards the east end of Louisa the Swale was never completed and asked why the City could not get something done to correct the problem. He then said he would like something done before the development starts and would like something done even if the proposal does not go through. He also indicated he was opposed to any townhomes along Greenwood Drive. • Mayor Sonterre asked why, based on Council Member Marty's comments that there is a document indicated the Swale would be done, why it has not been done. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Director Ericson indicated he did not know as the documentation required in 1974 was not as thorough as is required now and there is not much information on the matter in the City's file. He then said that, in reviewing City records, there is not a grading plan but there was discussion in reference to the Swale being constructed after the 6 units were built and Council said no more permits would be issued until the Swale was built. He further suggested that maybe Mr. Harstad could answer that question. Mayor Sonterre indicated he would ask Mr. Harstad the question later. Mr. Watkins indicated that part of the issue may have been from previous building officials and the "good old boy" attitude. He then said that those officials are gone and the new administration needs to fix the problem. He further said there should not be an issue with getting equipment in there as there was equipment brought in to redo the culvert under H2. Steve Miller of 2614 Clearview indicated he had lived in his home since 1974 and has lived the history of the area. He then said that Mr. Sprunck made mention of 15 homes that would be affected and said he would suggest that 50 plus homes would be impacted from the additional traffic in the area. He also said there are property value and safety issues to consider. Mr. Miller indicated that he too has water in his backyard and is not interested in finding out how much worse it could get. He then said that part of the problem lies with past administration and it is too late now but please do not make it any worse. He further stated that he requests that Council deny the request as it is R-1 property and should be utilized as R-1 property. Ron Morgan of 2656 W County Road H2 indicated he was speaking on behalf of the six townhome owners. He then said those townhomes are right in the middle of this development and there is an Association that governs all that land and they, as owners of homes and members of the association, have rights that need to be considered. He further said he feels it is bizarre that this has gotten to this stage and the residents have not been considered. Mr. Morgan indicated he was not an original owner but has been there for 15 years. He then said that Keith Harstad was given permission to build townhomes and he constructed six, sold them and abandoned the project. He further explained that those homeowners have had issues with financing and feel the Harstads abandoned them. Mr. Morgan said he felt going back to the old stuff as proposed is obsolete and should not be allowed. Mr. Morgan said he wanted to make the point that they, as the six townhome owners, have some rights. He the referred to City Attorney Riggs letter and read an excerpt from it concerning the rezoning request. He also commented that the upscale twin homes proposed at that time would have been more appropriate than the current proposal. • Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 10 Mr. Morgan indicated he was not sure what has changed or why the letter would not apply to this request but noted he has hired legal representation for the matter. He then said he feels it is bizarre that a rezoning of their land could take place without them being involved. He further stated that they come to Council, who represents the residents, to be fiduciary. Mr. Morgan indicated the common area is the largest portion of the property and said that the association comprised of the six townhome owners pay dues and assessments and no one else does because the other land is vacant. He then said he does not think it makes sense to put in six more units like are already there. Mr. Morgan indicated the townhome owners do not feel it is right and he feels Mr. Riggs letter says that they need to be involved in a zoning request change as they are part of that development and the only ones that live in that development. He then said they do have rights to say what will be done and asked that Council deny this request totally. Mr. Morgan said that his comments do not mean that the association would not support Mr. Harstad in development but they think there are ways to do things and things that must be addressed to resolve the issues to the benefit of all before coming to Council with a proposal. Mr. Morgan asked that Council vote this change down as R-3 is not acceptable to them. • Council Member Marty asked if Mr. Morgan pays association fees. Mr. Morgan said yes. Council Member Marty asked if association fees have been collected since the development began. Mr. Morgan indicated he was not there when the development began but has paid fees since he has lived there. Mr. Morgan indicated the dues go to the association for management of that land including lawn care and snow removal. Council Member Marty asked when it changed. Mr. Morgan indicated that Mr. Harstad was collecting in the beginning and he is not sure when that changed. He then said that Mr. Harstad has not paid dues and only owns 66 individual plots and no improved property. He further said that as things take place they have the right to be considered and this development is not fiduciary. Mayor Sonterre asked City Attorney Riggs to comment on the letter from 1998. City Attorney Riggs indicated Mr. Ericson had explained the matter correctly in that the two situations are different and the letter is meant to cover that one specific application. He then said Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 11 • he had spoken to Mr. Morgan's legal counsel and explained the letter and intent and he understood that. He further indicated that Council rezone the land on its own volition without an application to do so. Mr. Morgan said he is not an attorney and he does not think it appropriate to speak to the matter any further. City Attorney Riggs indicated he discussed the matter with Mr. Morgan's attorney and he understood the distinction between the request in 1998 and the request in 2002. David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road asked if an impact study would be done for this type of development. Director Ericson indicated that, if Council felt traffic could be an issue with this development, Council could request that a traffic study be done. Mr. Jahnke indicated that if residents are concerned with traffic input a study should be requested. He then asked how much power Rice Creek has to control development. Mayor Sonterre indicated the powers of Rice Creek are fairly broad and it takes legal action to overturn their decision. • Mr. Jahnke asked why there were two different opinions from Staff on the same issue. Director Ericson explained that the Comprehensive Plan had undergone an update and the zoning designation had been changed since Mr. Jopke's report was drafted in 1997. Mr. Jahnke said he is always concerned with legal fees and said he was impressed with the last speaker. He then said he thinks the landowners and developer should sit down and come to some kind of resolution before spending a lot of money on attorney's fees. City Attorney Riggs indicated he and Mr. Morgan's attorney had discussed that issue and, even thought there have been failed attempts in the past the League of Minnesota Cities recommends trying to resolve the matter prior to costly attorney's fees as well. Mr. Morgan indicated he and his attorney did talk and have a different opinion. He then said he does not know the law but he does know what he feels and he feels that living right there in the middle and being the only ones that live there this is not just and proper. He then asked Council to be fiduciary in that right. Mr. Morgan said that, if necessary to split legal hairs, it could cost a lot of time and money and there are other ways to accomplish things. He then said that some of the previous meetings went rather badly but the meeting with Mr. Harstad was fine, they agreed to disagree. • Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 12 • Mr. Morgan said he is not paid to be at these meetings and, in addition to not being paid to be here, he has been spending money as a taxpayer for City Attorney fees as well as fees he has paid to hire consultants. He then said he does not enjoy paying money for this situation and would hope that they can do something other than to agree to disagree. Richard Busby of 2645 Louisa indicated the Council had heard a lot about water problem which is a big problem but along with that he would like Council to take into consideration home values in the area as he would not purchase a home in a busy traffic area and he feels adding that much traffic to the area would diminish property values. He then asked Council to vote down the request. Martin Harstad of 2195 Silver Lake Road in New Brighton indicated he did not have an answer for all the questions but, if directed to do so will be happy to look into them for Council. He then said he has been working for a couple of years to resolve some outstanding properties since his father's retirement. Mr. Harstad explained that in 1974 the 72 townhomes were platted and that means that a separate legal description for 72 individual lots were drafted and recorded so he got 72 tax statements from the County. He then said six townhomes were built but were not selling so his parents, being land developers, moved on to other projects all the while still receiving tax statements for 66 lots. He further commented that the project was not abandoned but his parents moved on to • other projects. Mr. Harstad commented that the City changed its ordinance and townhomes were no longer allowed in an R-1 district. He then said he is not sure why the ditch was not dug but said he would ask his father tomorrow. He further explained that he can do nothing on his land because of the change to the ordinance and pointed out that his father had dumped sand on the property and was told by the City he did not have the right even to do that. Mr. Harstad indicated his parents have continued to pay property taxes on those 66 boxes and, in turn residents suggest that the property was abandoned. He then said they did not agree with the change in 1977 and voiced that opinion to Staff, their attorney and Council. He further noted that in 1983 they did try to come in and obtain a rezoning but were denied. Mr. Harstad indicated that ownership of the property is a complex issue because of the common area. He then said he has a clouded title and would need the consent of the other townhome owners if he steps outside of the 66 platted boxes. Mr. Harstad indicated he had tried to resolve the matter with the six property owners and they have agreed to disagree and what they disagree over is the dollar amount for their signatures to do something with the property. He then said that, since he was not able to reach an agreement with the other property owners they started looking at how to utilize the 66 boxes they own. He also noted that twinhomes would not work because they do not fit inside the little boxes. • Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 13 • Mr. Harstad indicated the zoning is not proper for the townhomes and he is looking for answers to this problem and would love to work it out. He then said he has heard about the issues with drainage and, while he has not walked around in back yards, he has toured the neighborhood and it appears there are potholes in backyards. He also indicated that it appears that some homeowners have taken what appears to have been at one time a split entry home with a 5 block basement and put in a patio door which leads to drainage issues. He further stated that he does not disagree that there are drainage issues but said there are many contributing factors for the drainage issues and a drainage swale would help but so would a storm sewer in the area. Mr. Harstad indicated that as part of the plat he gave a drainage easement for City storm water management and the plan was ultimately to have a Swale to come through back yards and dump into the wetland area. Mr. Harstad commented that since 1974 the City has allowed other developments to direct water to his property and the property is wetter than it was in the past and he is not sure if there is the capacity to hold runoff from this development today as there was in the past. He then said that there is room for ponding if required by Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Harstad indicated he would ask his father why the ditch was not completed but speculated that his father would say the City took away his rights in 1977. He then said he would like to see the documentation back and forth with the City and his father as well as a drainage plan because he does not have one in his file. Mr. Harstad said he would be wiling to do a traffic study if required by Council but he feels the roads in the area are designed to handle more traffic than area residents would like to see on their streets. Mr. Harstad indicated he had not seen the letter from Judy Rowley and would like a copy. He then indicated that he had met with Mr. Morgan in the past but would be willing to attempt it again with City participation. Council Member Marty commented that he remembered seeing a letter to Mr. Harstad asking that the fill dumped on the property be removed and that has not been done. He then asked what happened to the plan for the 29 twinhomes. Mr. Harstad indicated that he had provided a sketch plan to the City for consideration but the plan had gone nowhere because he could not reach an agreement with the townhome owners. Council Member Marty indicated he felt some of the land could be developed but he is not sure about the wetland area. He then said he had received information from a resident that indicates there is more water in the area being directed there from the theatre development. Council Member Marty indicated he would like the City, the developer and the landowners to meet to discuss the matter in an attempt to resolve it prior to litigation beginning. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 14 • Mr. Harstad said he is willing to do that but asked Council not to lose sight of the fact that there have been attempts made that have gone no where. Council Member Marty commented that he was surprised at the small amount of tax being collected on the piece that was sold at Ridge and Long Lake Road before it was improved. He then said he would like Mr. Harstad to work with residents and the townhome owners to come to a resolution on the matter. He further said that it appears that Mr. Harstad has shown a willingness to work with residents to reach resolution. Mayor Sonterre indicated he would be honored to facilitate the discussions and suggested setting up a date with no attorneys present for the parties involved to discuss and attempt to resolve the matter. He then said the boxes are not looking good and you need new boxes. Steve Miller asked why single family residential development would not be economically feasible. Mr. Harstad indicated he would need variances from Council to construct single family homes and they would be five feet apart. Mr. Miller indicated there is still the issue of the problem with the association. • Mr. Harstad said he was glad to see that Mr. Morgan has hired legal representation at this point because part of the problem with communication is that he has too much legal representation. Judy Rowley of 2562 Ridge Lane indicated her letter was part of the packet for the June 5, 2002 meeting as well as being on the website. Mayor Sonterre asked that Mr. Harstad call him tomorrow with his dad's answer to why the ditch was not completed. Mayor Sonterre indicated that Mr. Harstad should come to City Hall and make a data practices request to either view or have copies made of the documents he had referenced earlier in the meeting. Council Member Thomas said she did not wish to denigrate Mr. Morgan but said she does not consider the rights of the townhome owners over the rights of the property owner. She then said that she had received calls on this matter and the callers indicated that the proposed boxes do not fit the property any more and should be changed. She further asked Mr. Ericson if option two would allow for townhomes on H2. Director Ericson said yes. Council Member Thomas commented that H2 is to have storm sewer installed with the • reconstruction and commented that would help alleviate drainage issues. She also noted that Rice Creek has said they do not want the storm sewer. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 15 • Director Ericson said he could not begin to speculate as to what type of impact the storm sewer would have on the drainage issues in the area but said he feels it would only help. Mayor Sonterre indicated that fixing the grading would be huge help. Council Member Thomas noted there is a natural decline to backyards in the area, which means the storm sewer may not help all that much. Director Ericson said the storm sewer would be an improvement but the biggest improvement would be to grade backyards and maybe create storm water detention elsewhere so it does not flood out backyards. He then said that he thinks anything is an improvement because it is not working and any type of grading would have to pass muster with Rice Creek. Council Member Thomas asked whether there was a likelihood of anything happening to current water levels if the project does not go forward. Director Ericson said he does think there is a way to explore what can be done to complete the ditch that was not constructed. Mr. Harstad indicated he would have a really hard time going back in there and clear cutting all . those trees and spending thousands of dollars to solve drainage issues for other people if the project does not move forward. He then said he does not think it is fair to ask him to throw more money at a 30-year mess if it does not involve a plan for development of the property. Mr. Harstad indicated the City is suggesting he take all the drainage from all those houses and take the water and make go away. He then said that whether or not there were representations made 30 years ago he is not sure but it is not fair to ask him to do that. He also said he would create a swale at the back of his property line but it would be the responsibility of the individual property owners to grade and reshape their property. He further stated that he would create the swale along the back property line as is usually a part of any development but he thinks it is unfair to ask him to grade all the other yards for positive drainage. Council Member Thomas said that was not her suggestion thus the reference to the storm sewer and she does not think he could entirely remove water that flows in there. She then said her concerns are that if the City does not authorize some sort of development plan nothing will change. She further said she has no expectation to believe Mr. Harstad would do something with no development in mind and the 30-year waiting game would continue. Mr. Harstad indicated he would be happy to come to Council with different floor plan that would be new and aesthetically pleasing to all. Council Member Thomas asked if residents would support the piece on H2 with the rest not • being there which is option three. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 16 i Ron Morgan thanked Council for the opportunity to speak and be heard. He then said the association owns the property which is called common area and is owned on two deeds and that is by the far majority of land. Mayor Sonterre asked Mr. Morgan to address the specific question asked. Mr. Morgan said the answer is no as he does not think it is beneficial to the community and not appropriate. He then said that he thinks that is why the development was stopped as the units did not sell. Lee Watkins said he did not have a problem with construction on H2 but the density brought by 34 townhomes to the Greenwood area with two cars per family would be an issue. Mayor Sonterre said traffic for the neighborhood would not be an issue with option three. Council Member Stigney asked whether the City could run into legal problems by approving option three. City Attorney Riggs indicated the Council could approve the rezoning of the parcels requested by Mr. Harstad without consent of the townhome owners. Director Ericson indicated that option three would rezone a portion of the common areal City Attorney Riggs indicated that is a different issue as the applicant did not request that portion be rezoned it would be an action taken by Council at its discretion rather than by request. Director Ericson indicated that Staff recommends rezoning the parcel where the townhomes are located if the City approves option three because they are a nonconforming use and rezoning to R-3 would bring them into conformity. Council Member Stigney asked if there would be legal repercussions. City Attorney Riggs said that somebody can always sue but Council has the ability to rezone that property of it own volition. Council Member Stigney asked what the potential was that Mr. Morgan and his townhome association would sue the City. City Attorney Riggs indicated he was not sure whether they would sue the City but the City does have the ability to rezone any parcel in the City by its own volition and that is supported by state law and City ordinance. Council Member Marty indicated he was concerned that R-3 zoning would be too dense a use • and he would prefer to see upscale twinhomes. He then commented that he is concerned that Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 17 • because the homes are small, people would buy them as investments and rented by another. He also asked what the likelihood of doing the development as a PUD would be. Director Ericson indicated it could be done as a PUD but the property owner would need to agree. He then said that the City would retain ultimate control over the development through the site review process should the approval of the rezoning move forward. Council Member Thomas said that on behalf of renters, just because a home is owned by somebody and rented does not make it a bad thing. She then said that the Council is really determining whether the rezoning would move forward not discussing the platting. Council Member Quick asked at what point in time the public hearing would be closed to bring the matter to Council for discussion. Mr. Sprunck asked if anybody could give him one good defensible reason as to why population density and traffic density should be increased in the area. Mayor Sonterre asked him why it should not be since the traffic capacity is there with the improvement to H2. Steve Miller asked if it would be possible to rezone the lots to R-2 rather than R-3. Director Ericson indicated the Plannin Commission had asked that Staff discuss that with Mr. g Harstad and it is not an option because the request is for R-3. He then said that Council could deny the rezone and suggest that R-2 may be more appropriate. Council Member Thomas commented that the rights of the property owner to develop his land needed to be respected as much as the rights of the residents in the area. She then said that, if there is no significant reason not to increase the density, then why should the City not do so. Ron Morgan indicated that the Planning Commission spent two evenings discussing this matter and, without exception, voted this down. He then said he has heard no one other than Harstad speak to the benefits of this development. Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. and thanked residents for their input. Council Member Quick asked for afive-minute break. Council recessed at 9:25 p.m. Council reconvened at 9:36 p.m. Council Member Marty said he would recommend option one and recommend that the interested • parties meet to discuss other options such as R-2 to limit the density in the area. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 18 Mayor Sonterre indicated he had spoken to a representative of the association, the neighborhood and the developer and they have agreed to meet in the next few days m an attempt to discuss options for the property that would be amenable to all parties. He then said he could vote for either option one or option four. Council Member Thomas admitted she was torn between one and three and was very much against option four. She then indicated she would provide the language she wanted inserted. Director Ericson explained that any action tonight would be a direction to Staff to bring forward a Resolution at the next meeting. He then said that, based on discussions during the two-week period the direction could change at that meeting. Council Member Quick indicated he was in support of option one and said he did not feel Staff should be directed to go another way without a plan in front of him. He also said he would be willing to table if there is a need for further information. Council Member Marty said he would like to see when this comes back that this comes back as a possible PUD so the City would have more control over it at the City level. Director Ericson indicated the PUD would give the City more control but said it maybe difficult to impose a PUD on the developer. Council Member Thomas said she knew this was an unfair uestion but asked if Mr. Harstad felt q it would be possible to work something out and bring back another option to Council. She then said is there a plan b if this one is not approved. Mayor Sonterre indicated that Mr. Harstad has expressed a willingness to explore other options and work with neighbors and the City on the matter. Mr. Harstad said he does not have a plan b as this property has numerous challenges to development. He then said he is willing to dialogue with the neighbors and discuss options but he cannot guarantee how that will work out. Mr. Harstad said he would give the discussions his best efforts. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Based on Option One of the Staff Report Denying the Rezoning Request. Council Member Marty said he would like all parties to get together to work something out that is agreeable to as many as possible. Council Member Stigney agreed that this is one way to resolve the matter because if it is drug out past the 60 days it would be automatically approved. - ti n c cried. Ayes 5 Nays - 0 Moo a Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 19 • Council Member Marty went home ill at 9:55 p.m. B. Discussion Regarding Ordinance 700 Proposing an Amendment to the Mounds View City Charter by Amending Section 3.07 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View as to Signing and Publication of Ordinances. City Attorney Riggs indicated this proposed Ordinance is a result of discussions and language requested by the Charter Commission. He then explained he had provided sample language to the Charter Commission for consideration. He further explained that the language he had provided comes right from state statute and had been changed slightly by the Charter Commission and may have some potential ambiguity with regard to the language concerning cost effective. City Attorney Riggs indicated he believes it was the intent of the Charter Commission to alleviate the cost of rather lengthy ordinances that the City has to publish by allowing for a summary to be printed. Mayor Sonterre asked if it would alleviate the ambiguity to say that a lengthy ordinance is costly so a summary is cost effective. Council Member Thomas commented that she did not think there was any ambiguity created by the first paragraph being different from the 4/5th vote paragraph. She then said that Council is to determine whether the summary is cost effective and whether or not to publish the summary needs a 4/5th vote. City Attorney Riggs indicated he had brought it up because the language he used was the language that the legislature passed. City Attorney Riggs commented that it could be argued that Council needs to have a 4/5th vote to determine if it is cost effective. Mr. Thomas, Chair of the Charter Commission indicated he agreed with City Attorney Riggs that it was not the intent of the Commission to require a 4/5th vote to determine whether a summary was cost effective. He then indicated the Commission had discussed the matter at length and determined that, in some cases, it is more costly to have a summary prepared than it would be to publish the complete ordinance. City Attorney Riggs indicated he was trying to avoid having to interpret intent in the future by clarifying the language now. Mr. Thomas indicated that Council would have the latitude to correct wording in an ordinance so long as the content is retained. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 20 City Attorney Riggs agreed but said it is a tight standard and he would not like to say Council can amend the ordinance without discussion with the Charter Commission. Mr. Thomas suggested ending the sentence after the word summary and adding a footnote to clear up the ambiguity. City Attorney Riggs indicated the footnote could state that it is the intent of the Charter Commission that Council determines which is more cost effective. Mayor Sonterre indicated the purpose of this discussion is to get the ordinance in a form that would allow the public hearing to be set. City Attorney Riggs indicated the entire ordinance would need to be published in this instance. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve the Language of Ordinance 700 as Amended for Publication. Council Member Stigney asked how the footnote would read. City Attorney Riggs indicated the footnote would read, it is the intent of the Charter Commission that Council determines which method is more cost effective. A es - 4 Na s - 0 Motion carried. Y Y C. Discussion Regarding the Police Civil Service Commission Position Description. City Attorney Riggs indicated he had been told there was some discussion that Council wanted it noted that Council has the final appointing authority. He then said that is inherent in state statute and not necessary. City Attorney Riggs indicated that the wording of the description follows out of state statute 419.06, Item 7 that indicates that hiring and review stays with the Commission but appointment from the roster of three is at the discretion of Council. Council Member Quick said he thought the document was to be a blueprint for Commission Members to know what the responsibilities are and know that Council has the authority to appoint. City Attorney Riggs indicated he wanted to clarify it and said that the description is consistent with state statute and the City's Charter that the ultimate appointment lies with Council. Council Member Thomas indicated her concern was that the top part of the description seems • completely different from the primary responsibilities and she wanted to clarify the two because they are somewhat contradictory. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 21 City Attorney Riggs indicated he had discussed with Ms. Reed setting out parts of the Bylaws. Council Member Thomas indicated a section that adds information on the process would clarify. Mayor Sonterre suggested adding "to the City Council" where the description speaks to making recommendations. City Attorney Riggs said that would be fine. Council Member Thomas said she thought doing so would further confuse the overview. City Attorney Riggs indicated that Council has the ultimate authority over the appointment but not over the process of determining the list of appointees. Council Member Thomas said she felt it was necessary to find a way of explaining this to someone who is not educated as to the process and said she does not want to change the statute part of the language. Council Member Quick said he thought it should stand the way it is that way the Commission knows it has absolute authority over its portion of the process and, when their portion of the process is completed, then it is handed over to Council. City Attorney Riggs indicated he could add a separate paragraph. Council Member Stigney suggested adding "subject to Council approval." City Riggs indicated it is not Council approval it is Council appointment. Council Member Thomas indicated there should be a paragraph between overview and primary responsibilities that says once the duties are done it is passed on to Council. City Attorney Riggs indicated he would add a statement indicating that once certification of the roster is completed it would then go to Council for appointment. 8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Resolution 5799 Continuing the Contract for a Temporary Employee to Fill the Cable Technician Position. Finance Director Hansen indicated that Council had approved the hiring of a temporary employee to fill the Cable Technician Position on May 28, 2002 for 8 weeks. He then indicated that the hiring process has begun but, the 8 weeks is up shortly, and the hiring process will not be • completed so Staff is requesting an extension of 8 weeks or until the position is filled. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 22 u MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5799, a Resolution Continuing the Contract for a Temporary Employee to Fill the Cable Technician Position. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Resolution 5797 Approving the Appointment of Jeff Wienke to the Public Works Sewer Department. lr~ u Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated the Public Works Director had asked to change the start date from July 22, 2002 to July 29, 2002 to accommodate a vacation in the parks department. She then indicated there is an opening in the sewer department and interest was expressed by the parks department employee. She further indicated she and the public works director met with the employee and determined he met the qualifications and recommend that he be moved to the sewer department and request authorization to hire for the position being vacated in the parks department. Council Member Quick asked why there was a vacancy in the sewer department. Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that Larry Decheine had retired. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Sonterre. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5797, a Resolution Approving the Appointment of Jeff Wienke to the Public Works Sewer Department. Council Member Stigney commented that the reason the hiring is taking place this way is in accordance with the labor agreement to f 11 permanent job vacancies from within if the individual is qualified. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. Resolution 5800 Appointing David Jahnke to the Airport Advisory Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Sonterre/Quick. To Approve Resolution 5800, a Resolution Appointing David Jahnke to the Airport Advisory Commission. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 9. REPORTS Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated she had just finished updating the City's Code and asked how Council would like to receive copies. • Council agreed to receive updated Code on CD's. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 23 Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that the City Administrator's review is scheduled for August 5, 2002 at 5:00 p.m., prior to the work session. Mayor Sonterre indicated that Mr. Backman had asked him to inform the viewing public that there will be a meeting on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 at the Mounds View Community Center at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the Mounds View Manufactured Home Park Revitalization program. He also indicated that there would be refreshments and light snacks served as well as a supervised gym for the children of those attending the meeting. He further indicated that the general public is invited and encourage those that live in the park to attend. Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated the filing dates for this year's election are August 27, 2002 through September 10, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. and the filing fee is $10.00. She also indicated the City is in need of election judges and training for those judges will be held in August. Mayor Sonterre indicated he had asked department heads to add to his summary list of actions taken by this Council and provide those to him by midweek. Council Member Stigney indicated the Mayor's letter had said the list would be on the website but it is not. Mayor Sonterre indicated it would be when completed. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes for May 20, 2002 Council Member Thomas indicated she had offered this correction before but it had been left off. On Page 3 indicate that Mr. Longville would retain the title of golf course manager. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve the Minutes for May 20, 2002 as Amended. Council Member Stigney indicated that Council Member Marty asked to have the minutes held over from the last meeting in order to provide time to present corrections to the minutes. Mayor Sonterre indicated that Council Member Marty had given him a change to the Minutes of June 24, 2002 but not for the Minutes of May 20, 2002. Council Member Stigney asked whether comments had been given to City Administrator Miller. Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that Staff had not received any corrections or additions from Council Member Marty for either set of Minutes. • Council Member Stigney commented that Council Member Marty was adamant at the last meeting that the Minutes be held over for corrections. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 24 • MOTION: Stigney. To Table Approval of the May 20, 2002 Minutes to Allow for Input from Council Member Marty. The Motion failed for lack of a second. Ayes - 3 Nays - 1(Stigney) Motion carried. B. Minutes for June 24, 2002 Council Member Stigney requested the following changes: On Page 5 indicate that the City Administrator had said that the engineers licensure was part of the job description. On Page 19 indicate that Council Member Stigney had said that he wanted the City to discuss its goals first and then proceed with contacting other cities. Council Member Thomas requested the following changes: On Page 9 change raised to elevated. On Page 16 indicate that if CDBG grants were discontinued at the federal level as is currently being proposed in the federal budget. On Page 19 indicate that Ms. Reed was appointed to the Board of Directors of the League of Minnesota Cities. Mayor Sonterre indicated that Council Member Marty had requested On Page 20 that it indicate he had said morning not night. Mayor Sonterre requested the following change: On Page 19 add sentence at end of last paragraph but in the absence of any City run park and recreation department he thought the park dedication fund might be a possible location for the money. Council Member Thomas requested the following change: On Page 20 add a sentence at the end of the last paragraph to say: As that is the intent of this section of the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Quick. To Approve the Minutes of June 24, 2002 as Amended. Ayes - 3 Nays - 1(Quick) Motion carried. ll. CLOSED SESSION A. To Discuss Labor Negotiations MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Recess to Closed Session to Discuss Labor Negotiations. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Council recessed to closed session at 10:53 p.m. Mounds View City Council July 8, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 25 Mayor Sonterre noted Council would adjourn from closed session. B. To Discuss Threatened/Potential Litigation 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, August 5, 2002 Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 22, 2002 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • •