Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2005/10/10• PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW O RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 10, 2005 New Brighton City Hall 803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGL~NCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas NOT PRESENT: None. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, October 10, 2005 City Council Agenda • City Administrator Ulrich added item 8.E. Consideration of Resolution 6651, Authorizing the Layoff of Regular Full-time Golf Course Employees and Providing Severance. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, October 10, 2005 agenda as presented. Ayes -5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC INPUT Don Jenkins, 7057 Pleasant View Drive, stated he was concerned about grading of property to the north of him. Gary Rudy, Creative Real Estate, stated he had informed the Council previously that if there was a problem with the grading, he would be back before them. He stated they have not cleaned up the area and Mr. Jenkin's property was now flooded. He stated after being good citizens and living in the area for 40 years he should not have to put up with the destruction to his yard. He requested Council's assistance in this matter. Community Developer Ericson .stated he understood the property owner's concerns and the erosion and drainage on the site, but he took issue about the comment that staff did not care or did not do anything about it. He stated he had • sent to letters to Mr. Hanson and indicated that the silt fence had to be corrected and the site had Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 • to be regraded. He understood Mr. Hanson had done some of the work and they were working with Mr. Hanson to resolve and correct the problems. Mr. Rudy stated he had no problem with the staff, but rather with the owner of the property. He stated the property owner was not being a good neighbor. He stated the property owner should be made to put up a retaining wall. Mayor Marty asked if there was any damage to the dwelling. Mr. Rudy replied it got up to the foundation, but did not get into the home. Mayor Marty requested staff check into this and report back to the Council. He asked if staff could expedite this. Director Ericson stated staff would talk to Mr. Hanson and emphasis the fact that something needed to be done and the silt fence properly installed. However, he noted this could become a civil issue between the two property owners. He stated he understood Mr. Jenkins' concerns. Mayor Marry inquired about a Swale or retaining wall. Director Ericson stated this had been discussed and they had decided to put a Swale between the property line with a small berm, but he noted there was no vegetation on the property, so the Swale quickly filled in with silt and once everything was done, he believed everything would function properly, but until that happened, something needed to be done with the grading. He noted the Swale was not sufficient to handle a large rain event and this needed to be regraded to something more significant. He stated staff . would talk to Mr. Hanson tomorrow. Mr. Rudy requested staff inform him of the time of the meeting so he could be there also. Tom Belting, 122 Blackwood Street, Coon Rapids, expressed concern about the Groveland Park Building bidding system. He stated he did not believe the specifications were accurate on the bid. Mayor Marty stated Council had considered putting this out for rebid. Dave Warwick, 5081 Edgewood Drive, expressed concern about the parking ban put into place a few weeks ago. He presented a petition signed but all but two neighbors on the street. He stated the parking ban was well intentioned to protect the children crossing the street, but as he saw it, there were two problems. The first problem was the complete 24-hour a day parking ban. He believed this type of a ban was too excessive. He stated there were 14 residences being inconvenienced by this and some of the residents needed to park on the street. He stated when the residents had guests, there would be nowhere them to park. He stated they could park in the school parking lot, but who would be liable if someone was hurt. He indicated the Police Chief assured him that if they contact the Police Department they could have permission to park in the no parking area. He stated he believed this reduced their property values and inquired if there was no parking, there would be cars waiting on both the west and east side of the street, which would pose a greater safety problem for the children. He stated this would not solve the parking problem and he recommended the parking ban be limited to the time the children were outside, such as 7-9 a.m. and 2-4 p,m. He noted by doing it this way, parents who needed to take their • kids out of school for some reason, needed a place to park where they could quickly go into the school to retrieve their kids. He stated the second problem was that this got rushed through on Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 • the September 26 meeting and there was no input from the residents on the west side of the road. He stated the residents on the west side of the road were also impacted and he asked Council to reconsider the extent of the parking ban. Mayor Marty stated these were good points and he asked Council if they were willing to defer this to the November work session. Council Member Stigney suggested staff look at this now and bring their recommendations to the work session meeting. Council Member Thomas stated her only concern was that the work session was quite a ways down the road and they could not make any decisions at that meeting. She suggested staff put something together for Council for the next City Council meeting because this would be a better timeframe to work with before the weather turned inclement. Police Chief Sommer stated he could draft something for the Council's next meeting. He indicated he understood the residents wanted a ban on the west side, which created a problem for people parking on the east side. He stated they could look at the west side parking, or the hours of the parking ban. He indicated from a security standpoint, however it was not a good idea to have cars parking adjacent to a school. He stated the Police Department would grant permission for parking exclusions for special occurrences, but this was not something they did on a daily basis. He indicated he was sure they could work something out though. • Mayor Marty asked if they could have no parking or stopping on the east side. Mr. Warwick stated that would force the children to cross two lanes of traffic to get to the waiting car. He stated it would be better to have parents pick up kids on the east side. Mayor Marty requested Police Chief Sommers to get together with public works to get a report together for the next Council meeting. Russ Anderson, 5159 Edgewood Drive, inquired who said there was no parking on the west side of the street years ago. Mr. Warwick stated it was approximately 25 years ago. Mr. Anderson stated he did not recall one child being hit. He asked if there was no parking where would people park when there were after school or evening events. He stated he did not believe there should beano parking restriction. Craig Mesenbring, 5091 Edgewood Drive, stated if there was no parking on the west side of the street, everyone was still parking there to pick up their children and no parking on the east side was not an issue. He understood there was a security issue, but would this apply to all of the schools in the District. He stated the issue was enforcing the no parking/waiting on the west side and this had nothing to do on the east side. Chris Mesenbring, 5041 Edgewood Drive, stated he has lived in the community four years and he had not seen much of the enforcement of the bans as they have existed. He stated a total ban was • not going to resolve the problem and all it did was force people to break and law or park farther away. He stated he did not like the idea of calling the Police Department every time they wanted Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 • to park on the street. He asked Council to come up with a solution to this. Mayor Marry stated the Police Department did work with the citizens for issues such as this. Mr. Mesenbring stated he took exception to having to ask permission of the Police Department to park on their street. Councilmember Flaherty stated he believed this could be worked out and a compromise could be reached. Mayor Marry stated they would work to make this accommodating to as many people as possible. 6. SPECL~I, ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS Mayor Marty stated he wanted this item moved past the Consent Agenda in the future. Councilmember Flaherty, asked on Page 2, fourth item down, Four Season Tree Care, if this was storm related. Mr. Ulrich responded this was not storm related. It was due to diseased trees removal. Councilmember Flaherty, asked on Page 4, 4~' items down, D&J Corporation, if this was • reconstruction on Silver Lake Road between County Road H and County Road H2. Mr. Ulrich replied this was due to a watermain break. Councilmember Flaherty, asked on Page 6, 4~' items down, MP Johnson Construction, where this took place. Public Works Director Lee responded this was for a door at the Community Center and it was a budgeted item. Councilmember Flaherty, asked on Page 7, League of Minnesota Cities, if this was insurance or workman's compensation claim. Finance Director Beer replied this was the City's deduction for a worker's compensation claim. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 p.m. Consideration of the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat, Medtronic Development Stage PUD Plans, Rezoning of the Medtronic Project Area, Vacation of Ezcess Right of Way and Ezcess Easements, Wetland Alteration Permit and Calling of Bonds: 1. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6630, a Resolution Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Approving the Medtronic Development Stage PUD Plans Mayor Marty opened the public heazing at 7:28 p.m. Community Development Director Ericson stated they would not be discussing the wetland alteration and calling of bonds at tonight's meeting. He suggested all four items 8.A.1 through 8.A.4. be presented as one public hearing. Director Ericson stated on June 27, 2005, the Mounds View City Council and Economic Development Authority authorized an agreement with Medtronic Inc. to redevelop the Bridges of Mounds View golf course. The approved development was amulti-phased project with the first phase encompassing 820,000 squaze feet of office space and related ancillary uses. On July 11, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 760, an ordinance approving the transfer of land from the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View EDA and then subsequently to Medtronic. On August 22, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution 6581, which further authorized the sale of the Bridges site to the EDA for resale to Medtronic. At the same meeting, the City Council reviewed and approved the Medtronic Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM) general concept plans without conditions. Director Ericson noted Opus Architects & Engineers have submitted the detailed site plans, surveys and preliminary plat for this second stage of the PUD process. . Director Ericson stated the PUD has been revised from the general concept plans reviewed on August 22. The concept plan identified four distinct buildings in a pin-wheel orientation tied together by a two-story atrium-like commons area. While there remain four distinct eight-story buildings, these are now all oriented in an east-west fashion to enhance environmental sustainability. The first two phases would be linked together by stacking corridors and meeting rooms 60 feet wide except at the main level where the connective space is 180 feet wide. The first phase would be connected to the parking ramp north of the buildings at the ground level, where the daycare and service areas would be located. The parking plan remains the same, in that Phase 1 would include athree-story structure ramp to the north and the 900 surface stalls near the building entrance. Director Ericson stated the buildings are set back a minimum of 40-feet from the periphery lot line, which is consistent with the minimum requirements within the PUD. The buildings will be no closer than 80 feet to Highway 10 and 60 feet to Coral Sea Street and 82nd Lane NE. The Phase 1 parking ramp will be set back 100 feet from Coral Sea Street to preserve an existing stand of mature Scarlet Oak trees. The parking lot/ramp along 82 Lane NE will be set back 40 feet. He indicated the building will be constructed of precast concrete wall panels with horizontal and vertical reveals. The base of the buildings will have a decorative or specialty stone base. The rooftop utilities will be hidden from view by metal panel screens to match the color scheme of • the building. These rooftop mechanical aprons and elevator penthouses will be inwazdly set back from the edge of the building by as much as thirty feet to reduce their visibility. The facade will Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 • be dominated by a series of reflective one-inch thick vision glass windows set in prefinished thermal break frames. The first floor of the building will have a 20-foot sidewall height while all subsequent floors will be at a 15-foot height except the top floor, which will be 17 feet. The total building height, including the roof-mounted equipment, will be 140 feet. He noted Medtronic was proposing a small round-about at the access to the parking ramp to help coordinate and channel traffic to the site. A second larger turn-about is planned at the primary entrance to the facility with a small, separate pull out for child care pick-up and drop off. The buildings will be encircled by a twenty-foot wide fire access road with a service spur to the back of the building for service and deliveries. In this area as well there is another small round-about to help govern the flow of traffic. The surface parking area will take access from 82°d Lane NE. The parking ramp will be accessed from Coral Sea Street with the service road north and west of the ramp. Offsite, many improvements are planned to coordinate traffic to and from the site and the local and regional transportation systems. These improvements will be completed by October, 2007 and be ready by the time Phase 1 is completed and ready for occupancy. The most important of the improvements involve the replacement of the bridge over Interstate 35W. Currently at a two- lane width, the new bridge would allow for four through lanes with additional space for turning lanes. The bridge would be long enough to accommodate future expansions of 35W. The other significant improvement will be the signalization of the Coral Sea Street and County Road J • intersection. Coral Sea Street south of County Road J to the site will be reconstructed and widened to four lanes of traffic with a turning lane. The north leg of Coral Sea Street, currently offset from the south leg, will be connected at the intersection as an additional enhancement. He stated the City Forester has been provided a copy of the landscape plan. City Forester Wriskey indicates the variety and locations of plantings are satisfactory, but cautions that plantings in parking area islands and infiltration swales could become damaged during winter months if care if not exercised while plowing the parking lots. Mr. Wriskey will look directly with the landscape planner and contractor to monitor installation. He noted consistent with their other locations, the Medtronic plans identify a system of trails for employee usage. Much of the existing golf course trail system will be preserved and tied back to the facility, including the boardwalk through the primary wetland. The trails are shown on the site plan. While not a part of this plan, the City intends to explore construction of a separate trail system within the Sysco Outlet area which residents, Medtronic employees, Sysco employees, or any other worker in the area could utilize. He stated all runoff and necessary mitigation would be contained and captured on site. Only one wetland in the project will be impacted, that being the area alongside the Phase 1 parking ramp. The other area, while identified as a wetland, is the present location of Judicial Ditch #1. The ditch will be relocated away from the building alongside Highway 10 with a wider, more natural, meandering channel. The Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Managers reviewed the ditch • realignment at their meeting on September 28, 2005 and were supportive. Presently, there are 25 acres of wetlands and ponds on the site. Two new stormwater ponds will be created and an Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 • existing pond expanded to accommodate the run off on site. The Rice Creek Watershed District will review the full stormwater management permit at their upcoming meeting on October 26, 2005. He indicated the golf course site is presently served by the City of Blaine for water and sanitary services. For this project, as articulated in the Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private Development, the City will install a new sanitary and a looped water service under Highway 10 for Medtronic. While there had been some discussion about using Blaine's water supply for fire suppression purposes, a utility feasibility report will be conducted to determine and ascertain whether the Blaine services will be utilized. Regardless of the provider, the water main will be looped around the building with fire hydrants spaced per fire code regulations. The sanitary lines will run parallel to the building on the west and east elevations. Storm sewers will be constructed to serve the site with catch basins located along the fire access road and in the surface parking lot. The storm sewer will drain into the two stormwater ponds on either side of the building with all utilities installed underground. He noted the lighting plan and photometric analysis was provided to staff on October 4, 2005. The footcandle reading fall within acceptable ranges as outlined in Section 1103.09 of the Zoning Code. The parking lots will be illuminated with a series of 250 watt and 400 watt metal halide lamps fully hooded and downcast to prevent any glare and light spillage. The parking lot light standards will have a pole height of 30 feet and the pedestrian light standards will be 14 feet tall • with decorative fixtures similar to those on Edgewood Drive adjacent to City Hall and the Community Center. He indicated the Resolution would include a requirement that all signage be code compliant, unless otherwise permitted or authorized by the PUD document. Given the extensive frontage along Highway 10, more than one ground sign may be constructed which would be consistent with Section 1008.10 of the Sign Code. The Sign Code does not place a maximum square footage on ground signs in a PUD, the code expressly defers to the PUD narrative document. Staff will work with Medtronic to allow for a gateway sign to be located on Medtronic property near 35W and Highway 10. He stated the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat, date stamped October 5, 2005, was prepared by E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc. The plat proposes six distinct lots in one block. Copies of the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat have been provided to the City's public works department, the City Attorney, and Ramsey County. Ramsey County will be forwarded copies to the plat to MnDOT. He noted Lot 1, phase 1 included the parking ramp; Lot 2, Phase 1 was 820,000 sq. ft.; Lot 3, Phase 2 was 380,000 sq. ft.; Lot 4, Phase 3 was 300,000 sq. ft.; Lot 5, included the Blaine lots, parking areas; and Outlot A included the wetlands, ponds, and mitigations areas. He indicated the Medtronic CRM plat has been updated to show proposed easements associated with the Medtronic CRM subdivision, to which staff proposes minor changes as follows: 1. The easement over the Met council sanitary sewer interceptor may not be • vacated. 2. All of Outlot A shall be protected by public drainage and utility easement. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 • 3. The periphery easement on Lot 3 shall be widened from ten feet to 40 feet. He stated no internal road system will be needed with this development and no right-of--way will be platted with the exception of the northernmost point of the project area abutting Coral Sea Street where the proposed round-about would encroach into proposed Lot 1. Given that public traff c will be conveyed through this area, it is recommended that the preliminary plat be reviewed to show the area as dedicated right-of--way rather than a simple access easement. According to City ordinance, excess right-of--way is vacated by ordinance. Ordinance 765 will accomplish the proposed vacations. He noted consistent with and as articulated in the Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private Development, a park dedication fee in the amount of $865,000 is applicable with this subdivision of land. Ordinarily, the City will assess a fee of either five or ten percent of the land value (less improvements) as determined by the Ramsey County Assessor. The 2006 County assessed valuation of the land being subdivided is $7,500,000. Assuming a ten percent dedication, the city would have received a dedication of $750,000. In this case, the dedication was agreed upon during the contract negotiations on the purchase price of the land. The dedication fee will be paid at the time of building permit application. He indicated the division of land as proposed by the preliminary plat would be consistent with • the Comprehensive Plan, as amended by the City Council and approved by the Metropolitan Council. The Future Land Use Map designated this land as "Office" which is the use planned with this subdivision. He stated with the general concept plans for the Medtronic Planned Unit Development approved, the City must consider a rezoning of the project area from the existing Light Industrial (1-1) designation to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Typically, this is done at the development stage of the PUD process consistent with the final Council approval of the site plans. He indicated the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the development stage plans, the preliminary plat and proposed rezoning at their meetings on September 21, 2005 and again on October 5, 2005. Based on all of the information, the supporting plans and documentation associated with the request, staff and the Planning Commission recommends the City Council open the public hearing and take testimony from staff, the applicants, residents, and other interested parties and then consider the following actions: 1. Approve the Medtronic CRM development stage plans. (Resolution 6630) 2. Approve the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat. (Resolution 6631). Along with the Resolution approving the preliminary plat, Ordinance 765 which vacates the excess easements and right-of--way associated with the Medtronic plat has been prepared and is available for introduction and first reading. • 3. Introduce and approve the first reading of Ordinance 764, an ordinance rezoning the Medtronic CRM campus from 1-1, Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Development. Mayor Marty invited public comment. There were no public comments made. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Councilmember Thomas thanked staff for looking into the easement issues on the outlots. Mayor Marty asked if Ordinance 765 would be changed to state this. Director Ericson responded he was not sure it was appropriate to be in the ordinance, but it would be in the preliminary plat. He requested on Resolution 6630 the last sentence under Resolved S. be stricken. Director Ericson requested changing the resolution to require phase 2 and phase 3 come back before the Council. He indicated the intent was to get authorization for the full buildout, but if Council only wanted to approve Phase 1 at this time, that was in their power to do that. City Attorney Riggs stated the Council had broad discretion in this matter. He indicted the development contract contemplates a phased development and if there were any deviations from that, it would have to come back to Council. He stated he did not believe they were dealing with the same issues. • Director Ericson stated in his staff report he recommended if there were no changes made to the development, Medtronic could move forward with it, but if changes were made, this needed to be reviewed by the City Council. He noted they could add this to the Resolution. Councilmember Flaherty believed this was a good idea and asked if something could be written in the ordinance addressing this also. Community Development Director Ericson responded they could do that also. Mayor Marty stated he had a question on Resolution 6630, first page, item 3. He noted subsequent changes would be dealt with by future Councils and he suggested they have something in there that Council has a cursory review. He indicated he wanted to leave that option open. Councilmember Thomas stated she had no problem stating that Council should look at changes, but reminded the Council that they were approving a three phase development and that was the whole point of the plan and cautioned them to not go too far down the road. She stated they had to draw the line at some point and every choice the Council made, a future Council needed to deal with. She stated as long as the plans did not change, Medtronic should not be required to come back to .Council. Director Ericson suggested striking under Resolution 6630, item 3 "with the exception of updating the transportation mitigation plan". He also suggested adding after approved plans "all applicable current codes and regulations." • Mayor Marty asked if they could create a swale or berm to contain the water on the current hole 9 so all water was maintained on their property. Public Works Director Lee responded that could Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 • • be handled under the agreement permit, but they needed to look at this closer so they did not intentionally drain the pond. Councilmember Flaherty stated this issue was addressed under the stormwater and wetlands management portion of staff's report. Mayor Marty stated this did not address a Swale or berm. Mayor Marty stated he had a concern under transportation issues that the AUAR did not deal with City streets and traffic issues. He noted with this development, there was a possibility of more of a draw of additional businesses and indicated light rail might have the possibility of coming into the area. Mayor Marty stated with respect to park dedication fees, he asked if they needed to do a feasibility study for the trail and asked if the study would come out of the $160,000 park dedication fees. Director Ericson responded the fee could come out of this dedication. Mayor Marty stated under Resolution 6620, Therefore item 2, he asked if they intended storage structures. Representatives from Medtronic nodded. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6630, a Resolution Approving the Medtronic Development Stage PUD Plans as amended. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 2. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6631, a Resolution Approving the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat Director Ericson stated he had already touched on this in the preliminary plat. He noted the following conditions: 1. The easement over the Met Council sanitary sewer interceport shall not be vacated. 2. All of Outlot A shall be protected by public drainage and utility easement, which has been accomplished. 3. The periphery easement on Lot 3 shall be widened from 10 feet to 40 feet, which has also been accomplished. 4. City Council approval is subject to Ramsey County approval. 5. If deemed necessary by the City Attorney, the Applicant shall execute a subdivision agreement consistent with the requirements and regulations of the City of Mounds View and State of Minnesota. 6. The applicant shall submit the Medtronic CRM final plat within months from the date of preliminary plat approval or the preliminary plat approval shall be rendered null and void. Councilmember Thomas asked if condition number 6 was to deal with certain other issues having • to deal with development. Director Ericson responded this was standard language they put in all preliminary plat approvals. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 11 • Mayor Marty stated he liked the requirement under condition 2. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6631, a Resolution Approving the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 3. Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 765, an Ordinance Vacating Excess Easements and Right of Way within the Medtronic CRM Plat Community Development Director Ericson presented the areas to be vacated as a result of this ordinance. He noted a second reading would occur at a future meeting. Councilmember Thomas stated this was only for street utilities only and they were not vacating all of the easements. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To waive the reading and approve the introduction of Ordinance 765, an Ordinance Vacating Excess Easements and Right of Way within the Medtronic CRM Plat. • Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 4. Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 764, an Ordinance Rezoning the Medtronic CRM Campus from I-1, Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit Development Community Development Director Ericson stated this had been previously explained. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and approve the introduction of Ordinance 764, an Ordinance Rezoning the Medtronic CRM Campus from I-1, Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 5. Resolution Authorizing the Preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility Report and Consultant Selection for the Extension of Public Utilities to the Medtronic CRM Development Project Councilmember Gunn asked how much the improvements would cost the City. Director of Public Works Lee responded the latest information came form the AUAR and based on those estimations, the City's portion to provide utilities to the site was $400,000.00. Councilmember Gunn stated she had received comments from residents that this was going to Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 12 • cost "millions of dollars". She reiterated this would cost the City $400,000.00 and not "millions of dollars". Councilmember Flaherty asked if they had some assurances that they would come in on budget for the $400,000.00. Director of Public Works Lee replied there were no assurances. Councilmember Thomas stated the way to be sure their numbers were accurate was to do this. City Administrator Ulrich stated there were options available, such as the City of Blaine being an alternative for providing water. He noted the study would look at those alternatives and they could chose which option they wanted. Mayor Marty stated under the fifth whereas, he asked if this went over $400,000.00 was this stating that they would start dipping into the TIF pool to pay for the rest. Public Works Director Lee responded that was his understanding, but this language came from the Developer's Agreement. Mayor Marry stated under first Therefore clause, second sentence, he noted it seemed a little late to be paying for a report to address these issues. Public Works Director Lee replied that exact wording came from a State requirement. • Mayor Marty stated he did not like the idea if it goes beyond the $400,000.00 budget that it comes out of the other City TIF Funds. He believed this should stand alone. Councilmember Thomas stated they did not have to have this in the Resolution, but the Developers Agreement already had this in, and the Developers Agreement was already approved, so it did not matter if this was taken out or not. MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6652, a Resolution Authorizing the Preparation of a Preliminary Feasibility Report and Consultant Selection for the Extension of Public Utilities to the Medtronic CRM Development Project. Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Mayor Marry) Motion carried. B. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 763, an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of an Excess Drainage and Utility Easement Associated with the SYSCO Addition Plat Community Development Director Ericson explained that due to actions beyond the control of the applicant, this item and all other SYSCO items previously scheduled for review at this meeting have been rescheduled for the October 24, 2005 Council meeting. Because a public hearing had been set, published and noticed for this particular item, the City Attorney • recommends the Council open the public hearing and continue the hearing until October 24, 2005. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 13 • Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. There were no comments made at the public hearing. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To continue the public hearing and consideration of the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 763, an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of an Excess Drainage and Utility Easement Associated with the SYSCO Addition Plat to the October 24, 2005 Council meeting, New Brighton City Hall, at 7:05 p.m. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. C. Consideration of Resolution 6633, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for an 8,300 Square Foot Building at 2395 County Road 10 Community Development Director Ericson stated Dr. Greg Belting along with his brother, Tom Beltin, of Silverview Chiropractic Clinic (currently located at 2552 County Road 10) has entered into an agreement to purchase the empty lot behind Walgreens and would like to construct an 8,300 square foot multi-tenant building for himself and other small office type uses. The single story building would be situated against the back of the lot so that the back of the building would front the wetland area rather than the Community Center. • He indicated the City Council approved Dr. Belting's request for an amendment to the Walgreen's PUD in July, 2005 to permit "office" uses as an allowable use on this site, which was originally guided for a restaurant use. Efforts to market the undeveloped parcel behind Walgreens and been ongoing since its creation yet restaurant development did not occur despite the best efforts of the owner, the realtors, and City staff. Feedback from prospective and other contacts indicate that the site was too hidden by the Walgreens building. Limited visibility from County Road 10 and the oddly configured lot has prevented this site to be developed as a restaurant, as originally intended by the PUD. The parcel is a five-sided polygon with minimal street frontage on Edgewood Drive. To be north of the parcel is the Community Center, to the west is City Hall, to the east is the wetland and open space area, and to the south is the Walgreens store. The site is adjacent to County Road 10, the City's primary commercial corridor, and has a County Road 10 address. Rice Creek Watershed District at their meeting on September 28, 2005 conditionally approved the stormwater and drainage permit, indicating that the plans were an improvement from the original drainage plan. He indicated the typical parking requirement for an office type use are 8 stalls plus one stall per every 175 square feet of leased office space. For an office building with a gross area of 8300 square feet, 55 parking stalls would need to be provided. Because the City calculates parking needs on a net basis, factoring out bathrooms, mechanical areas, entryways, stairwells and other • similar areas, the number of required stalls will be available on the adjacent Walgreens site as was originally the plan with the Walgreens Planned Unit Development. The applicant will need Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 14 • to execute a cross access, joint parking and maintenance agreement with the owner of the Walgreens site and provide a copy to the City. He stated there is but one access to the site which is the shared driveway onto Edgewood Drive. While it is possible for clients of the building to exit County Road 10 and access the Belting building indirectly via the Walgreens site, this would be a more circuitous route and would not be encouraged. He indicated the Walgreens PUD requires that the building shall be constructed of high-quality masonry construction using brick and brick accents to match the Community Center, theater and City Hall. Materials and siding effects shall be consistently applied on all four building elevations. The PUD document does not however explicitly indicate the percentage of the building which needs to be brick or masonry. The Applicant desires to incorporate a mix of exterior finish materials to help accent the building. It should be noted that the Walgreens building is at best 60% brick, the remaining upper 40% being stucco (EIFS). He noted it was not necessary to have full brick on the back side, but staff felt it was important to have a continuing facade on the north, west and south side of the building. He stated according to Section 15 of the Walgreens PUD document, the Belting parcel is permitted a maximum 100 square feet of ground monument signage (excluding the .sign base) plus an additional 100 square feet of building mounted signage per building occupant. Staff will • review all signage permits to ensure consistency with both the PUD as well as Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to signage. He indicated the photometric analysis provided for the project has two options, both of which satisfy the City's minimum requirements concerning glare and light spillage. The second option (option 2) allows slightly more light to spill over the periphery of the Community Center parking lot, which may be a desirable outcome. He stated an easement originally platted with the Mounds View City Hall addition will need to be vacated as a result of this plan. The easement had been taken assuming a different utilization. A new easement would be taken in its place. The applicant's engineer has prepared the legal descriptions for the easement to be vacated along with the description of the easement to be acquired. He noted the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the development review request at their meeting on September 21, 2005, recommending approval. He stated staffl s recommendation was to approve Resolution 817-OS which recommends approval of a development review for the proposed 8,300 square foot single story office building at 2395 County Road 10. Dr. Greg Belting, 1525 Sherman Lake Road, Lino Lakes, stated they had missed the all brick • requirement for the building materials when they designed the building. He indicated their destination point was a business usage purpose and he stated they could have a nice look to the Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 15 • building without having a total brick building. He stated he wanted to put up a nice building and intended on being in the City a long time. He indicated people would own these office condominiums. Tom Belting, 1222 Blackwood Street, Coon Rapids, stated they had looked at the front of the building as a focal point. He indicated they were willing to add additional landscaping. He presented an alternative plan for the exterior of the building. Councilmember Thomas stated with this building being in the City Center, there were some aesthetic requirements that needed to be met and as long as the building looked nice and aesthetically pleasing, she did not believe they needed a certain percentage of brick material. She asked what percentage of brick material were they intending on putting on the building. Tom Belting responded the alternative they came up with was a good option and presented at tonight's meeting. Dr. Belting stated he did not know the percentage of brick they were proposing at this time. Councilmember Stigney stated this was a PUD and the reason this was a PUD for Walgreen and the Community Center was to blend into the City Hall, which were all brick. He indicated the Walgreens PUD required masonry. He noted the Planning Commissioners had stated they wanted it brick on all sides. Dr. Belting indicated the Planning Commissioners had noted they could not make that decision and it would have to be Council's decision. Councilmember Stigney stated he believed this building should be all brick. He asked what other ..materials where they contemplating. Tom Belting replied they were intending on putting up aluminum siding. Councilmember Stigney stated he did not want aluminum siding. Councilmember Flaherty noted he had no problem for the owner making this building inviting. He stated he had a personal preference to the North Oaks building they showed pictures of and he did not have a problem amending the PUD. Councilmember Gunn stated a lot of this had to deal with the color scheme also and she agreed the North Oaks picture was very nice. She indicated she understood why they were requiring the all masonry, but believed they limited themselves when there were other very attractive alternatives also. She stated she did not have any problems with this request. Councilmember Thomas stated an aesthetic look involved more than just the building materials and indicated she did not have an issue with their request as long as the building matched the existing buildings in the area. Mayor Marty stated he liked the North Oaks picture and Vadnais Heights pictures. He indicated . because this was the City Center, he would not have a problem with having a building such as depicted by these pictures. He noted they did not want every single building in the City Center Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 16 area to look the same either, and as long as this was coordinated and tied in, he believed they should grant the variance. With respect to lighting, he agreed with staff and noted there were no residential homes in this area and the more light they can get into this area would help create the City Center in a safety zone. He stated the more light the better. With respect to parking, he asked if they had spoken with Walgreens about the possibility of having shared parking. He noted the Walgreens parking lot had plenty of parking spaces and on the outside chance of a tenant creating a parking need, he believed this should be tied into an agreement with Walgreens for overflow parking. Tom Belting stated they had a common easement agreement and they needed to confirm they could use the parking on the east side. He noted Walgreens had put the retention pond on the property and they wanted to make sure the pond embellished on both properties. He stated he did not believe there would be an issue of overflow parking and he did not believe overflow parking would be used that much. Mayor Marty noted the Walgreens was not totally a brick building either. Councilmember Flaherty asked of the 8,300 square feet, how much would his business occupy. Dr. Belking replied his business would encompass 2,800 square feet and they have had other businesses interested in this development. Councilmember Flaherty asked what type of businesses were they talking to. Dr. Belking replied they had spoken with a dentist and agift/florist shop. • Tom Belking noted this was an association which would instill pride and ownership in the businesses also. Mayor Marty noted he liked the aspect that this would be owner occupied. MOTION/SECOND:. Gunn/Marty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6633, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for an 8,300 Square Foot Building at 2395 County Road 10. Director Ericson asked for clarification on stipulation 3 of the Resolution. Mayor Marty stated they had agreed to placing brick on the back and if that was acceptable to brick the bottom portion of the building. Councilmember Thomas stated she wanted this flexible and as long as the materials were consistent, she was not concerned about the percentage of materials. Councilmember Stigney asked if the front of the building was going to be all brick. Dr. Belking responded they planned on going all brick, with the only deviation being the pillars. Councilmember Stigney suggested they add to condition number 2 that the front face of the building shall be 100 percent brick construction. Councilmember Gunn and Mayor Marty accepted the amendment. Councilmember Stigney stated here was an opportunity to have an all brick building and he Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 17 • believed the Council has erred in this decision, but making the front all brick was an improvement. Councilmember Flaherty stated this was Councilmember Stigney's personal opinion and he believed the building as proposed was a nice looking building. Mayor Marty agreed. City Administrator Ulrich asked if it was the intention to have the three-foot base around the building. Director Ericson responded he would date stamp the plans presented tonight which would be consistent with the site plans presented at tonight's meeting. Ayes-4 Nays-1 (Councilmember Stigney) Motion carried. D. Consideration of Resolution 6634, a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision (Lot Line Adjustment) between 8123 Pleasant View Court and 8117 / 8119 Pleasant View Court Community Development Director Ericson stated the owner and applicant, James Benson, has applied for an approval of a lot line adjustment between the properties he owns at 8123 Pleasant View Court and 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court. The subdivision would move the common lots line of 8123 Pleasant View Court south 33.80 feet to meet the most southeasterly corner of 8117- 8119 Pleasant View court. James Benson owns both properties - he resides at 8123 Pleasant • View Drive, and 8117-8119 is a duplex currently being used as rental property. The purpose of the land transfer is to move the property line to correspond with the corner of Lot 6, along with allowing more yard space for Lot 9. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6634, a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision (Lot Line Adjustment) between 8123 Pleasant View Court and 88117 / 88119 Pleasant View Court, Planning Case MI2005-007. Councilmember Gunn left the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Ayes-4 (Councilmember Gunn not present for the vote) Nays-0 Motion carried. E. Consideration of Resolution 6651, a Resolution Authorizing the Layoff of Regular Full-time Golf Course Employees and Providing Severance City Administrator Ulrich explained that in anticipation of the golf course redevelopment and closing, the City Council adopted a severance package for the three regular full-time golf course employees on August 22, 2005 with passage of Resolution 6585. The consensus of the Council at that time was to allow payout of vacation and sick leave in accordance with current policy and to allow accumulated flextime to be used by employees. The Council also determined that there be additional severance pay of one week per year of service. • City Administrator Ulrich reviewed Section 4.15 of the City's Personnel Policy, noting it provides that the "City Administrator, with the approval of the City Council, may lay-off any Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 18 . employee whenever such action is deemed necessary by reason of shortage of work funds, the elimination of the position, changes in the organization, or other causes." City Administrator Ulrich advised that the golf course has three full-time employees who would be impacted by the sale and closure of the golf course. The positions that would be eliminated are the Golf Course Manager, the Clubhouse Manager/Golf Instructor, and the Grounds/Equipment Manager. None of the existing golf course employees applied for other available City jobs during the last few months in which one position in Public Works and one in Community Development were filled City Administrator Ulrich stated it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 6651 Authorizing the Layoff of Regular Full-time Golf Course Employees and Providing Severance. Pursuant to the previously adopted Resolution 6585, the severance package includes standard severance pay of vacation and sick leave as provided in the Personnel Manual, plus consideration of the employee's balance of flextime hours. Additionally, a severance benefit of one weeks pay per year of service is included. Councilmember Gunn rejoined the meeting at 9:04 p.m. City Administrator Ulrich noted this was being brought up at this time because the auction was scheduled for October 20 and it was important to have the employees present at that auction as • well as a couple of weeks after to close everything up. He stated if the auction did not occur, they would have a different situation and that needed to be taken into consideration. He stated in speaking with the City Attorney, if the closing was not anticipated to go through by October 20, it would be in the City's best interest to not have that auction because the City would no longer be operating the revenue activity which paid the bonds, and therefore, the money would need to pay off the bonds in the amount of 2.6 million. He stated they were waiting for a Judge's ruling, which was expected to come this week, which would determine the future of this issue. He stated there might be the need to have a special Council meeting once they had the Judge's ruling. Mayor Marty asked when would the bonds become due. City Administrator Ulrich responded the bonds become due at the closing, or when the golf course ceased doing business as the golf course. Mayor Marty stated they should not close down the golf course until they had received a ruling. City Administrator Ulrich suggested Council postpone action on this item until after the Judge's ruling. City Attorney Riggs suggested Council authorize the City Administrator to have the authority to cancel the auction if there was not a ruling made in time. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To give the City Administrator authority to cancel the • auction if necessary. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 19 • Mayor Marty inquired if the auctioneer had been informed this auction might not proceed as scheduled. City Administrator Ulrich replied he had. Councilmember Stigney stated as far as "being on the hook", they funded the golf course anyway and to him he believed they were exclusive measures and whether Medtronic came in or not, he believed they should get out of the golf course business, sell the land and be done with everything. Councilmember Thomas stated the timing was theirs to control and should this fall through and they not have the Medtronic development, they had the opportunity to continue the golf course in the Spring. She stated if they made this anon-revenue producing property, the bonds would be due whether somebody else owned it or not. Councilmember Stigney asked if they sell golf course equipment were the bonds due. City Attorney Riggs responded if they discontinued the golf course business, the bonds would become due and payable. Councilmember Stigney asked if they still had income coming in from the billboards wouldn't this pay the bond. City Attorney Riggs stated they needed to give the City Administrator the option to reschedule the auction and allow further time for staff to research the bond issue. • Councilmember Thomas stated the actual dollar amounts was not that important and the bonds were set up as the financing mechanism for the golf course and while they could probably find the money to continue the golf course, the bonds were tied to the financial mechamsm. Councilmember Stigney asked how much was required for the next few years for bond payments and requested the City Attorney to research this further. Councilmember Flaherty stated he agreed that if the assets of the golf course were gone, the bonds would be due. Mayor Marty also agreed. Councilmember Stigney stated they should get out of the golf course business and they had other money available in other funds to pay off the bonds which he believed they should do. Ayes-1 Nays-1 (Councilmember Stigney) Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To postpone the Resolution until after the closing and have this be brought back to the Council. Councilmember Flaherty stated he did not believe this needed a motion. After further review, Mayor Marty agreed. Councilmember Stigney did not agree and believed they needed a motion. He indicated they • needed to postpone this to a specific time. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 20 • City Administrator Ulrich stated they should either postpone it until the property was closed or approve it. MOTION/SECOND: Flaherly/Marty. To approve the Resolution Councilmember Thomas stated she agreed they should approve this and it did not make any sense to not approve it so they did not have to deal with special City Council meetings. Mayor Marty stated he understood the golf course employees would be retained for a couple of weeks after the auction to close things up. City Administrator Ulrich responded they needed the employees for a week. He noted they should postpone this to the next regular Council meeting. Ayes-2 Nays-3 (Councilmembers Flaherty, Gunn, Thomas) Motion failed. MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Thomas. To approve Resolution No. 6651, Authorizing the Layoff of Regulaz Full-Time Golf Course Employees and Providing Severance. Councilmember Stigney requested an amendment to the motion to provide a two weeks notice of layoff starting tomorrow. The amendment fails for lack of a second. Ayes-3 Nays-2 (Councilmember Stigney and Mayor Marry) Motion carried. . 9. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution 6650 Approving 2006 SCORE Recycling Grant request to Ramsey County B. Insert to Truth In Tazation Notice C. Licenses for Approval MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 26, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes The following corrections were requested: Page 1, Line 34 should read: "a while ago" Page 3, Line 39 should read: "She is pleased" Page 4, Line 25 should read: "cleanup will begin" Page 14, Line 21 should read: "meeting" • Page 14, Line 41 should read: "Degree and has done" Page 23, Line 33 should read: "concerns" Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 21 . Page 26, Line 36 should read: "greens grass" Page 4, Line 11, should read: "side, south of County Road I and all citessouth of Count~l0 sustained more damage. Mayor Marry stated that he was informed" Page 11, Line 10, should read: Mayor Many asked about the restriction recommended for Tract D (that it is not buildable and how enforceable it would" Page 13, Line 2, should read: "Mayor Marty stated we reviewed that about a year ago when another sergeant was discussed. Staff had" Page 16, Lines 18-21 should read: Mayor Marty stated it is not creating a new job because this job has been here for years. The new job was created in 2000 or 2001 to change the Assistant to the Cit~Administrator position to be Assistant City Administrator. The position has been vacant since 2002 and Ms. Crane has been doing the job since that time. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To Approve the September 26, 2005 City Council meeting minutes as corrected above. Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 11. REPORTS B. Reports of Mayor and Council • Mayor Marry stated as of today the street pick up of the debris only three streets remained in the City that have not been cleared. He noted those streets were on the south side, just east of Silver Lake Road. He stated if anyone lived on any other streets, it was the resident's responsibility to get rid of the debris now. He stated tomorrow they should be finished. He indicated if anyone had questions, they should contact City Hall and speak with Public Works. Mayor Marty stated they had a fire station dedication tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. and everyone was welcome to attend. Mayor Marty stated he went over to Cummings Park Open House in Arden Hills and spoke with Tom Moore, the Operations and Maintenance Manager, to look at their new park building. He noted the new building was in excess of $600,000 which was paid by park dedication funds from Guidant. He stated he had spoken with Mr. Moore about the Mounds View park building and Mr. Moore had indicated they had a similar building which cost them $350,000.00. He indicated after the discussion with Mr. Moore, he realized that their park building was not out of line, but if they could do it for less, that would be better. Mayor Marry stated they had spoken about civility at meetings and recommended adopting a policy that came in the handout. He stated at any time someone feels they are offended, to bring this up to Council. He stated he wanted to be civil at the meetings. Councilmember Thomas stated she had visited a few of the parks after the storm and she had • some concerns with Silverview and asked how much of the tree damage was going to be cleaned Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 22 • up. She asked staff for a report as to what was going to be done with the parks and how much debris was cleaned up and how much debris would be left. B. Reports of Staff City Administrator Ulrich stated Mayor Marty, Park and Recreation Commissioner Kunz, and he had attended a workshop meeting sponsored by BCBS to promote active living within Ramsey County. He indicated the City can take advantage of the grants being offered. He stated those items would be on the agenda in the future. He noted Ramsey County Managers met recently on the consolidated dispatch center and a funding formula was agreed upon, which was a big step forward on a compromise. He stated they were now located out of the Mounds View Community Center for City Hall and this was working well. He stated there was a utility bill drop off box on the right hand side of the inside door. He stated all of the public meeting were televised Live. He indicated Andrea Bonta(?sp) will be coordinating cable during this period and they were still in the process of looking for apart-time cable person once they moved back into their City Hall. Community Development Director Ericson stated they will be sending out notices to area demo contractors tomorrow asking for proposals on demolishing the property on 7861 Groveland Road. He stated the City had acquired the property a few years ago for redevelopment purposes. He stated there had been some issues with break-ins and minor vandalism and therefore they • were going to recommend the City demolish that property. He stated they had looked at moving the building, but structurally the building might not survive a move and the cost to do a move, might exceed the value of the structure. He stated the property at 2390 County Road 10 canopies took a direct hit from the September 21 storm and staff was concerned there might be a structural compromise and they have put the licensee on notice that they have to have a structural analysis that the canopy was sound and if it was not sound, they needed to make repairs. He stated Snyder's was progressing nicely and they were still planning on a December opening. He stated there was a For Lease .sign at the Abbey Carpet Building. Finance Director Beer stated homeowners that had delinquent utility bills for two quarters will be receiving notices going out tomorrow notifying that those properties will be certified to the County to be placed on their taxes on October 24. C. Reports of City Attorney City Attorney Riggs stated the matter involving Mounds View City Taxpayers Association v. Mounds View City Council, et al. was argued recently at Ramsey County District Court and the Judge noted she would be reviewing this matter and getting back to the parties with an Order and acknowledged this was a significant time concern. He stated he believed this decision would come sooner rather than later. Councilmember Stigney asked how many members were in the Taxpayers Association. Mr. Riggs responded he believed it was about 7-8 members and only the directors were listed on the lawsuit. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 23 • Councilmember Stigney asked when they would receive an update on the plan and strategy between the City Attorney and Medtronic so they knew what was going on. He stated he wanted to know what the plan was. City Attorney Riggs responded they could discuss this in a closed session once they received the Order, but if he had any questions in the meantime, he can talk to him directly. Councilmember Stigney stated he would like that information conveyed to City Administrator Ulrich instead of him directly. 12. Neat Council Work Session: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, November 7, 2005 Nezt Council Meeting: (New Brighton City Hall) Monday, October 24, 2005 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting recessed to Executive Session for contract negotiations at 9:49 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Kathy Altman • Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. •