Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2006/03/27PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL ~J • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ~~~(1, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~ ~~ ~I ~~ `. Regular Meeting March 27, 2006 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~IVCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, and Thomas NOT PRESENT: Flaherty 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • A. Monday, March 27, 2006 City Council Agenda MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To Approve the Monday, March 27, 2006 agenda as presented. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC INPUT Mayor Marty stated David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, called before the meeting and wanted to stress that the City should concentrate on streets and infrastructure and this should be the number one priority. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS None. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 770, an Ordinance Vacating Excess and Unused Right of Way to SYSCO Minnesota. Community Development Director explained Ordinance 770. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 • Director Ericson stated that re resentatives from SYSCO are resent to answer uestions. p p q Director Ericson stated this is a good example of the City working with a property owner and existing business to move forward with their growth and development. He stated it releases former right-of--way back to the property tax rolls of approximately 16,000 square feet. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 770, an Ordinance Vacating Excess and Unused Right of Way to SYSCO Minnesota. Director Ericson asked if the motion and second includes authorization to publish the ordinance summary. Mayor Marty and Councilmember Stigney replied it does. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor Marty Aye Councilmember Gunn Aye • Councilmember Stigney Aye Councilmember Thomas Aye Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards. Director Ericson noted the Municipal Code should take into account the recent changes relating to the First Amendment free speech rights, making the Sign Code more consistent with content neutral guidelines, so that the Sign Code is defensible. He stated Staff is looking to remove language associated with commercial and non-commercial differentiation to make it as content neutral as possible. Director Ericson stated changes were highlighted in detail at the last meeting, about regulating signs based on the size of the sign, the type of the sign and the location of the sign, and eliminating language about the content of the sign. Director Ericson explained that the Municipal Code relating to signs and billboards also needs to be amended to bring the City Code into compliance with the agreement of the City and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. relating to the relocation of billboards from the golf course property to elsewhere in the community. .Director Ericson stated the proposal was to open up billboards to be located anywhere on I-35W, Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 • Highway 10, Old Highway 8, north of the intersection of County Road 10 and Silver Lake Road and south of the intersection of County Road 10 and Wooddale. He stated there was some discussion at the last meeting about eliminating the locations of north of the intersection of County Road 10 and Silver Lake Road, and that has been amended for the Second Reading, and those locations are not part of the Ordinance. Director Ericson stated there are issues associated with the locations on the south side of County Road 10, specifically one area where the City is planning to put up a gateway sign as one enters the community from the southeast. He stated there is some concern if there is a billboard sitting on top of this sign or adjacent to it, there might be too much clutter or take away from the effect of the gateway sign. He stated that Staff recommends further revising the Ordinance to eliminate any spots on the north side County Road 10 south of Woodale. He commented there would be three or four parcels that would be affected. He stated this change is not reflected in the Ordinance yet. Director Ericson explained the other change that is recommended is to restrict the height of the proposed billboards to 45 feet, but only on Highway 10, I-35W and Old Highway 8. He explained this would be conditioned on proper zoning. He stated the height restriction would be 35 feet on County Road 10. He explained this is not reflected in the Ordinance, so an amendment will be needed for this. He stated if there are height issues, the City will look at those issues on a case by case basis if there is a need for a variance. • Director Ericson stated a re resentative from Clear Channel Outdoors is resent. p p MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GLTNN. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards, including adoption of the proposed changes made by Staff. Councilmember Thomas indicated that there are several changes that are not reflected in the Ordinance that need to be discussed. She asked for explanation of the language changes. Councilmember Stigney asked for clarification on Item f. Director Ericson stated there are two areas that would be changed. He referenced Page 3, Section 7, addresses height limitations by district, where footnote 3 indicates the maximum billboard height is 45 feet. He proposed to change the language to reflect that in the locations along Highway 10, Old Highway 8, and I- 35W that the height limitation can be increased to 45 feet so the underlying height limitation remains at 35 feet. He stated it would eliminate the County Road 10 locations as being appropriate for 45 feet, so those areas would remain at 35 feet. Director Ericson commented that with regard to the locations that the billboards can be sited, he referenced Page 4, Paragraph b, where "the south side of County Road 10" would be added to explicitly state that it is the south side only at that location. He stated the map would also be amended that illustrates the same change. Councilmember Thomas stated the Council has not discussed the locations other than I-35W that Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 . were proposed to be at 45 feet. She stressed there is information in the new Ordinance that has not been discussed as a group, such as Old Highway 8 having 45 foot sign limits and the exemption of the north side of County Road 10. Mayor Many commented he talked to Councilmember Flaherty, and stated that his take was that the entrance gateway into the City at County Road H and County Road 10, whereas Director Ericson suggested the monument sign would be on the north side of County Road 10 coming into the City. Mayor Marty stated that as far as he and Councilmember Flaherty were concerned, a height limit of 45 feet along I-35W, US Highway 10, and Old Highway 8 is fine. He stated he would like to try to keep billboards out of the City and keep them on the outskirts of town. Mayor Marty commented as Councilmember Flaherty stated in the agreement for Medtronic Phase 2 incorporating into Phase 1, Medtronic would be obligated to buy out two billboards. Mayor Many suggested the language should reflect the locations of I-35W, US Highway 10, and Old Highway 8 and the language should be removed that refers to County Road 10. Councilmember Thomas stated she has a concern with billboards in the Old Highway 8 area because it would be too close to residences. She stated it is the same reason she does not like billboards on the north side of the City. She stated it would not be fair to residents to have billboards put up by their homes. She stated the Council could discuss a requirement of distance from residences. • Councilmember Gunn asked if the distance re uiremen i q t s 250 feet. Mayor Marty stated rt was. Councilmember Gunn wondered if it would be on the other side of the road. Councilmember Thomas stated there is no specification on Old Highway 8, and it is not specified on I-35W and Highway 10 where there are residences on the sides of the road. She stated there are issues and changes that have been raised that have not been discussed yet. She stated it is difficult to get anything on the north side to qualify for the 500 foot amendment that Staff had proposed. She stated this is why the distance language was removed. Mayor Marty suggested an amendment to remove County Road 10 as a sign location. He reviewed that billboards can be placed along US Highway 10, Old Highway 8 and I-35W. He stated there is the guarantee that Medtronic would buy out at least two billboards. He stressed he would like to keep the billboards out of town and keep them in the outskirts only, to keep a good first impression for someone coming into Mounds View for the first time. He stated the City has no control over the subject content on the billboard. City Administrator Ulrich suggested Section 10, Subdivision 6b, would be amended to strike "or County Road 10 south of Woodale Drive". AMENDMENT MOTION: MARTY/STIGNEY. To amend Section 10, Subdivision 6b, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards, to strike "or County Road 10 south of Woodale Drive" as a sign location. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 City Administrator Ulrich stated it would also include the amendment of map to reflect the change. Councilmember Thomas stated there is no point in negating the area entirely, as long as it is controlled by height. She stated she could accept the Staff recommendation to remove it from the north side where there are no residences. She stated she is more interested in protecting the residents' homes. Mayor Marty stressed he wanted to keep billboards out of the main thoroughfare. Councilmember Gunn stated there are a lot of signs on the end of County Road 10, and she would much rather have signs there than anywhere else on the road. Mayor Marty stated there is the guarantee from Medtronic that they will buy out two signs, so the City does not have to put them there just because the City could. Councilmember Gunn stated there is no guarantee that Clear Channel will find spots where the Council is allocating signs. Councilmember Thomas pointed out that the Sign Code does not apply to just that situation. Councilmember Stigney stated he agreed with not putting billboards on County Road 10 at all. City Administrator Ulrich commented out that the City has the obligation to provide some areas where signs can be located. He stated by indicating that signs can be located on I-35W and Old County Road 8, the City has met the contractual obligations to provide areas where signs could be explored with the property owners with locations with Clear Channel and it opens up to other companies as well. He stated the City does not have to necessarily go beyond that. Ayes - 3 Nays -1 (Thomas) Amendment motion carried. Councilmember Thomas suggested an amendment to keep the maximum height at 35 feet unless it is outside of the 250 foot radius of residences. She stated the 45 feet limit will hit close to some of the places on Old Highway 8. Director Ericson explained the signs have to be located beyond 250 feet from the residences, regardless of height. Councilmember Thomas asked if the height limitation would be allowed at 45 feet around the area. Councilmember Gunn asked if the changes would be a height restriction of 35 feet along County Highway 10 and 45 feet along I-35W, Old Highway 8, and Highway 10. Director Ericson stated that was the initial recommendation for change. Councilmember Thomas stated she does not want it to be 45 feet if it will be close to residences, which there is on Old Highway 8. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 Councilmember Gunn wondered if the signs would want to be higher rather than lower. Councilmember Thomas responded no because the higher it gets, it causes light pollution and is disrespectful to residents. AMENDMENT MOTION: THOMAS/MARTY. To amend Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards, to allow a maximum billboard height of 35 feet on Old Highway 8. Director Ericson stated he would take the Ordinance back and check the map to see how much it would impact the sites if it was changed to reflect a 500 foot setback for residential zoned property. Councilmember Thomas stated it would be only for the 45 foot height limitation. Mayor Marty stated depending on where the location of the sign is, a variance could be requested. Councilmember Stigney stated that one of the problems is the relocation of billboards and where to put them, and that a certain height is required for the billboards to be visible in some locations. He stated this issue was already discussed, and the certain locations that require a height of 45 feet have been designated. He stated he does not support the amendment. Councilmember Thomas stated Old Highway 8 was not part of that discussion. Mayor Marty stated there are residents living in that area, and the height requirement could be 35 feet, and a variance could be requested for signs on Old Highway 8. He stated the City would look at it if it is a hardship and if it does not infringe on the citizens, it would not be a big deal. He stated for the protection of the residents, he supports an amendment of the height requirement of 35 feet on Old Highway 8. Councilmember Gunn asked Rich Sonterre, representative for Clear Channel Outdoors, if they were putting billboards along Old Highway 8, would they be put on the I-35W side by I-35W or on the business side. She asked who would see the billboards if they were on the business side. Mr. Sonterre, stated that all of the property between Old Highway 8 and the MnDOT fence line is public held land and does not allow for construction. Councilmember Stigney asked Mr. Sonterre if there would be a problem with having a height requirement of 35 foot and requesting a variance for any heights necessary above that. Mr. Sonterre stated that Clear Channel prefers to have a single common voice with Tom McCarver on all policy matters and negotiations with the City. He stated he prefers to have Mr. McCarver speak on this question. He stated if an evaluation was done of the locations that exist and look at the obstacles that would be a hindrance to visibility rights, it would be assumed that a Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 higher billboard would be necessary. Mayor Marty stated he would like to give consideration to the citizens that live in the area, and if a variance does seem to be necessary, then Clear Channel can come forward and ask the Council. He stated the Council would look at the specific site and make a determination. He stated if there is a hardship, the Council may very well have to extend the height limitation to 45 feet. He stated he did not want to give it a blanket 45 foot approval. Ayes - 2 Nays - 2 (Gunn, Stigney) Amendment motion fails for lack of a majority. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor Marty Aye Councilmember Gunn Aye Councilmember Stigney Aye Councilmember Thomas Aye Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. (Note: This item was again addressed under Staff Reports, Item B.2.b. Motions were made to reconsider and postpone to April 4, I0, 2006.) C. Resolution 6781 Authorizing Execution of a Joint Cooperative Agreement between Ramsey County and the City of Mounds View for the CDBG Act. Item deleted. D. Resolution 6784 Approving Change Orders No. 11-17 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. Director of Public Works Lee reviewed Change Orders No. 11-17. Change Order 11 is in the amount of $12,579 for items related to doors. Change Order 12 is in the amount of $12,051 for the replacement of existing hot water heating coils. Change Order 13 is in the amount of $3,650 for items relating to the concrete floor and partition wall in the Police Sally Port 142. Change Order 14 is in the amount of $4,642 for items relating to changes of the Lobby's ceiling design. Change Order 15 is in the amount of $4,482 for items relating to duct work, vestibule detail and flooring. Change Order 16 is in the amount of $977 for items relating to interior glazing, crank handle, and electric strike. Change Order 17 is in the amount of $29,285 for HVAC improvements. Marty asked if Change Order 11, the addition of electric strikes, is for the card key. Director of Public Works stated it is. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 Director of Public Works Lee explained these changes are consistent with list given to the Council dunng the last meeting. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6784 Approving Change Orders No. 11-17 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. Councilmember Stigney stated the total costs are now at $1.5 million, and the project was budgeted for $1.6 million. He stated a lot of things keep adding up, and it is time to say no to some of the items. He stated that he did not support the project in the first place. Ayes - 3 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. E. Resolution 6785 Approving Execution of a Letter of Agreement for Community Center Remodeling Design Services. City Administrator Ulrich explained at the March 6, 2006 Council work session, it was the Council consensus to proceed with the recommendation of the Mounds View Community Center Task Force to hire a design professional to provide a review of space utilization and preliminary cost estimates for the recommended remodeling options. City Administrator Ulrich explained three architectural firms submitted proposals for the Phase 1 preliminary design work. He explained the lowest two bids came in at $5,000 each from DSGW Architects and Rozeboom Miller Architects. City Administrator Ulrich stated DSGW Architects has been responsible for smaller community center projects including the North St. Paul Community Center. He stated that project is compared in many ways to the Mounds View Community Center. City Administrator Ulrich stated Rozeboom Miller Architects recently did the YMCA/City Community Center in Andover. He noted that many of their projects have been larger in scope, but the firm indicated they are comfortable with all sizes of projects. City Administrator stated he recommends choosing Rozeboom Miller Architects with a bid of $5,000 for the development of Phase 1 architectural design for the Mounds View Community Center. Councilmember Stigney stated he does not agree with the recommendation of the Task Force to convert the Community Center into a fitness center. He stated what is being asked of the Council tonight is to proceed with the project by spending money on the design agreement. Councilmember Stigney asked if anyone has looked at the practicality of breaking even when asking for 50 percent from membership and 50 percent or more from the City. He asked how many memberships will it take to make the Community Center self-sufficient to pay for itself. He wondered if this is a viable project with all the other fitness centers in the area. He asked why the City would want to get into the fitness business. He suggested the City gets Requests for Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Proposals (RFPs) to see who can come up with something that might bring in a viable alternative instead of changing the Community Center to a fitness center. Councilmember Stigney stated his concern with Launching ahead with something without knowing what the dollar value is. He stated this is the wrong approach on the Community Center altogether. He stressed the City should go out for RFPs to get different options instead of doing the fitness center route. Councilmember Thomas stated the Community Center Task Force compared very closely to what was going on in North St. Paul and why the rates were used and whether it would be appropriate for Mounds View. She stated the City is not running a strip mall and is not trying to find who is going to make the most revenue in the building. She stated the issue is if it is going to be made into a serviceable Community Center for residents. She stated the 50/50 was the original 1996 proposal that was based off the concept of the revenue-making side being the banquet center and the Park and Recreation Commission replacement to have them running that. City Administrator Ulrich stated that in North St. Paul, it was found that they were very successful in bringing in additional revenue. He stated this is one of the things that convinced the Task Force that it would be a viable solution to the revenue issues that the Mounds View Community Center had. He stated the North St. Paul Community Center currently brings in $140,000 of revenue, so it could be a very viable source of additional revenue and help supplement the Community Center, but still have it focused on the community and provides community services that it traditionally has. Councilmember Stigney stated he heard a lot of projections on how much the golf course would bring in. He asked if there are any guarantees that those revenues will come in. He stated if it does not happen with membership, then the City would need to contribute the rest. He stressed the City should go for RFPs to get other viable alternatives. Councilmember Gunn stated the whole purpose was to bring the Community Center back to the community. She stated the City tried to bring in private businesses to run part of Community Center several times and it did not work. She stated people have commented about the small exercise room and how much more they would use the Community Center if there was decent equipment. She commented even the kids at school have been talking about a cheaper place to go to exercise. Councilmember Gunn stressed these kids cannot afford to buy a whole membership at the YMCA, Northwest, or Lifetime Fitness, and this would be a place where they could come and use the facilities at a reasonable price. She stressed the building should be brought back to the community and offer things to hopefully bring in more people. She stressed nothing can be guaranteed in the building. Councilmember Stigney stated it can be guaranteed with a contract. He stated the recommendation by the Task Force will turn it back on the taxpayer. He stated the goal is to make the Community Center self-suff dent. Councilmember Gunn stated that many years ago when the Community Center idea came forth, and one person made a comment that the Community Center would be self-supportive. She stated this has been brought up over and over. She stated the rest of the people on that committee Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 • did not ever believe that the building would be self-sufficient. She stated there is still a Parks and Recreation Committee, whether it be the YMCA or the City's own people, the City still will be funding programming. Councilmember Gunn stated it would still be coming out of taxpayer money even if there was not a building. She stated the City has always paid for that part of it. She stated the Community Center is a City building, and the City will probably be funding part of the Community Center for a long time, but hopefully the amount will be going down. She suggested perhaps the City can get it to run even with membership dues. She stated the Community Center needs to be brought back to belong to the community. City Administrator Ulrich explained this step in the process is to ascertain how much of an investment this really would be, and whether it justifies the cost. He stated this is the first step towards another decision, which would be whether or not the City should go ahead with this investment. He stated this gives us the cost estimates to give information to determine if it is a cost-effective decision. Mayor Marty noted that the Rozeboom Miller quote is identical to DSGW Architects at $5,000. He noted that DSGW Architects did the North St. Paul Community Center that is comparable to the Mounds View Community Center. He stated both proposals look comparable. He stated that when reviewing the proposal from DSGW Architects, if Phase 2 is pursued for the implementation (construction, administration and project follow-up), the fee percentage is 6 percent compared to Rozeboom that has a fee percentage of 7.5 percent. Mayor Marty stated it seems that the North St. Paul project worked out pretty well and if the project goes farther than dust this study, he stated he would be more comfortable knowing ahead of time that the City would save 1.5 percent of the costs by going with DSGW Architects. Mayor Marty stated David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, called before the meeting and stated Mr. Jahnke does not want the City to go forward with this. He wondered if this meant the Community Center would be changing. Mayor Marty stated this is to take a look to see if it is feasible and is not giving approval to change anything at the Community Center at this time. City Administrator Ulrich stated he is comfortable with either architectural firm. He added that Phase 2 is not being sought right now, and that cost may be negotiable with either firm. He suggested he could go back and ask if Rozeboom Miller if they could guarantee 6 percent for Phase 2, but if it makes no difference and the Council likes the design work of DSGW, he commented he is fine with going with them. Councilmember Gunn asked if there was any particular reason Rozeboom Miller was chosen. City Administrator Ulrich stated it was somewhat a subjective decision, and that he preferred more of the design work and also that they had some higher profile work. He noted they were also the only firm that came out and walked through the areas of the Community Center. Mayor Marty pointed out in both of the reports, DSGW and Rozeboom stated the quote of $5,000 is all-inclusive whereas SEH had meals and travel expenses that would be added on to Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 . their quote of $9,500. Mayor Marty stated the Council is approving which firm is to take a look at the Community Center. He stated if the Council approves Rozeboom tonight and the project goes farther, and they do not agree to reduce their fees to 6 percent, DSGW could have been a little cheaper in the long run. He stated both firms are relatively comparable, but is leaning towards DSGW even though they did not come out to the Community Center. Councilmember Thomas asked if there is an indication from past history if the firm stayed on budget and timelines. City Administrator Ulrich stated Rozeboom satisfied the budget and timelines on both the Andover and North St. Paul projects. He offered to research it further. Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated she and her husband belong to Anytime Fitness in Mounds View. She stated the business is thriving, is a real asset to community and is also reasonable priced. She stated she agrees that the City should not get into things like this as it runs the risk of driving a brand new business out of the City. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNK. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6785 Approving Execution of a Letter of Agreement for Community Center Remodeling Design Services, with the amendment to select DSGW Architects. • Councilmember Stigney stated it will cost the City $5,000 to proceed with the project, when the City should not be looking at proceeding with it at all. Finance Director Beer suggested that the Council designate the fund that should be used to pay the $5,000 fee as part of the resolution. He recommended the Special Projects Fund. A consensus was reached that the Special Projects Fund should be used. Ayes - 3 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. F. Consider Request of Mr. Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, Regarding Enforcement of Building Code Provisions. Director Ericson explained that Brian and Valerie Amundsen live at 3048 Woodale Drive and have a swimming pool in their rear yard. He explained there is a six foot tall fence around their backyard to comply with City Code, which requires (at least) a five foot tall fence for pool areas. He stated that last year, the Amundsens' next door neighbor at 7092 Pleasant View Drive constructed aloes-height retaining wall alongside the Amundsens' fence and graded the land level between the wall and garage. He explained the end result is that because of the change in elevation along the common property line, the fence no longer offers the same level of security as it did before the neighbor's lot was graded. Director Ericson stated the Amundsens charge that due to the actions of the neighbor, their fence no longer conforms to City Code and they are . assuming undue and unnecessary risk and liability and are requesting Council action to correct the situation. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 • Director Ericson ex lained the s' i n w p rtuat o as brought to the Planning Commission, the matter was discussed and forwarded on to the City Council for consideration. Director Ericson stated Staff sought legal counsel and indicated that Staff prepared a letter to the Amundsens which indicated that their fence and the presence of the retaining wall and grading area alongside of adjoining wall that are both in compliance with City Code. He stated two compliant issues side-by-side should not make one or the other non-compliant and should not prohibit or restrict a resident from doing something on their own properly. Director Ericson pointed out one of the issues that Mr. Amundsen has brought up is in regard to the definition of a terrace, and citing City Code that all yard terracing be set back two feet back from the property line. He stated the interpretation of a terrace is not a retaining wall, but rather is a reference to a patio or deck area. He stated the intent of the Code was more to restrict decks and patios away from a property line. He stated it is very common to have a retaining wall at the property wall and there are no setback requirements for retaining walls. Director Ericson stated Staff recommends taking no action on this matter. Valerie and Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated this has turned into quite a bigger issue. She stated when they talked to the Planning Commission, the major point was the fence • issue. She commented that Brian did find the part of the Code that states that terraces need a two foot setback. Ms. Amundsen commented that part of the City Code imports the State of Minnesota Code, and in the Minnesota Code, it says that if a word is not given a definition, one goes to the Merriam- Webster Collegiate Dictionary and that definition is to be used. She stated by this definition, what her neighbor has done is a terrace, and there is a two foot setback requirement stated in the City Code. Ms. Amundsen stated the fact is that in this county, one's property is to do with as one pleases to, as long as Code is followed. She stated there are some restrictions and one cannot do whatever one wants right up to the edge of the property because there are setbacks. She stated the neighbor stated that he decided to use the area for parking a vehicle, and she stated there is a five foot setback for this that is clearly laid out in Code. Ms. Amundsen stated it is the responsibility of City Staff to uniformly enforce Codes across all residents' property. She stated they are asking the City to enforce the existing Code. Ms. Amundsen explained that they went to City Hall to review the permit and it was found that the permit was for a fence. She stated if a fence had been built, it could have been right on the property line and nothing could be done about it. She stated grading was done, pulled dirt, and changed the contour of the land. She stated there was no permit to do grading work, and • commented she feels Staff is overlooking the fact that work was done without a valid permit and not within Code. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 Ms. Amundsen stressed that Code i s there for the public health and safety, and rt has been well thought out for the protection and safety of the neighborhood and also to respect residents' rights. She stated that she and Brian have gotten very familiar with the Code and have strictly followed it in the past. Ms. Amundsen stated it is Staff's job to admit if a Code violation was overlooked. She stated the letter referenced the idea that there are other people doing this, and commented that this does not make it right. She wondered if this type of thing has been allowed to go on in the community. Ms. Amundsen stated she hopes that they were not dealt this way because of past issues with the City, because it is plain and clear that there is Code that needs to be followed. Mayor Marty asked how someone can pull a permit to build a fence and how it passed the Building Inspector if they have not made a fence, but rather did grading work and put in a retaining wall. Director Ericson stated there may be a language issue involved in this situation. He stated when the applicant made the application for the work, Staff went to the property and observed it was not really a fence that was being constructed but rather a retaining wall. He stated the permit was changed to be a retaining wall with associated grading. He stated the property owner was not • sure what he was applying for. Director Ericson noted Staff takes offense to the implication that something was overlooked or that its integrity was being questioned for past issues with the property owners. He stressed the City treats no property owners special, and that the Amundsens are wonderful property owners and the City would hope that every property owner would have the same regard for Code. He stated they are wonderful examples of what residents should be. He stated he was sorry the Amundsens feel like they are being mistreated or being somehow punished for past issues. Mayor Marty stated all residents will be treated the same regardless of past issues. Ms. Amundsen stated the matter is frustrating and she feels like she is doing the City's job. She stated she does not think it is fair and does not know why it is happened. She stated the neighbor originally wanted to put up a fence. Mr. Amundsen stated it is currently still listed on the permit as a fence. Mr. Amundsen stated it is a clear situation that was brought to the permit office on August 24, 2005. He indicated that he was opposed to anything Located that close to the fence, and if the neighbor wanted to proceed with something on the property line that was not a fence, a variance would need to be requested through the Planning Commission. He indicated none of that process was followed. Mr. Amundsen stated when he contacted Director Ericson in regard to the land that was going to be filled in, Director Ericson indicated there was very little that could be done. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 Mr. Amundsen stated he now has additional liability because in the intent of the law, he has a protective fence to keep the public away from having access to the pool, and if someone can walk up on to a retaining wall with only 3.5 feet of resistance instead of the intended 5 feet, any insurance claim would say he is negligent in not trying to enforce the rule of having 5 feet of protection. He stated he does not have the proper restriction into his property. Mr. Amundsen stated there has been both a looking aside at what the Code states, and also the intent to preserve public safety, which is the responsibility of the permitting department. He stated that when applying the Code, a more restrictive interpretation instead of a general interpretation is to be used. He noted this is a quote out of the State Municipal Code that the City has adopted. Mr. Amundsen stated they really want to resolve this issue, and the neighbor has been uncooperative when they tried to work with him. He stated they decided to assert their rights and responsibilities to have the City look into why these Code violations have been allowed. He stated there is a public safety issue that needs to be addressed. He stated the Planning Commission did not want to deal with the matter. Mayor Marty asked Director Ericson how much room there is from the fence/retaining wall back into the yard or garage. Director Ericson stated he does not recall the exact dimension from the garage to the property line, but recalled that a small vehicle could be parked alongside of the • garage to maintain a five foot setback. He stated the requirement was clearly communicated to the property owner, that if they chose to pave surface, they would need to come before the City to have a five foot area for the parking area, and a vehicle would need to be parked five feet from the property line. Mayor Marty asked if the area is currently a finished surface. Director Ericson indicated it is not. Mayor Marty confirmed that there can be no parking there. Director Ericson indicated that is correct. Mayor Marty stated he was concerned if someone tripped over a wall and then fell six feet, it could be a problem. Director Ericson stated that Mayor Marty raised a good point; however, if the Amundsens did not have a pool, that issue is still going to be there regardless. Director Ericson pointed out that from a Staff perspective, it is a clear situation and a clear interpretation of the Code. He stated a retaining wall was constructed, and there are no setback requirements for a retaining wall. He stated when he indicated a common occurrence, it is because retaining wails are often built alongside a property line. Mr. Amundsen stated he was not sure when the retaining wall Code was changed, as he was told a retaining wall had to have a five foot setback in 1984. He stated this does not negate the fact that the Code has a two foot setback requirement for a terrace, which is any surface that extends within two feet. He stated this may be a difference of how the Code is applied, but it is what the current Code states. He stated he is asking the Council to enforce the setback because there is a difference of opinion between what has been the practice and what the current Code states. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 • Councilmember Thomas stated it seems to be clear to all parties involved, even though they are diametrically opposed. She stated it is helpful to provide a definition of a terrace, but a definition of retaining wall is also needed. She stated not all of what State Code provides is necessarily the definition the City can use for its charter, because the City Code can define terms in regard to how it chooses to use them. Councilmember Thomas stated the Council needs to find out what the City definition is for a retaining wall and why it is different. She stated she needs more information to sort out this matter. Ms. Amundsen stated if she reads the Code and it says a terrace has a two foot setback, but there is no definition of a terrace in the City Code. She stated one does not need to know what a retaining wall is, one needs to know what a terrace is. She stated by the definition in State Code, it is a terrace. Councilmember Thomas stated the City still does not have a definition of a retaining wall and what might be the difference between them. Mr. Amundsen stated the term "retaining wall" only appears once in Code, when it references fences that are built next to retaining walls. He stated this is the single reference to a retaining wall. He stated if a use is not defined within Code, then it is prohibited. He stated a retaining wall next to a lot line is not a defined use, so it is prohibited. . Councilmember Thomas stated if there is a rule about a fence with a retaining wall, then it is a defined use and retaining walls next to fences are allowed. She stated the Amundsens have clearly discovered a hole in the Code that the City needs to fix with language. She stated if the Code is not good enough for residents to understand, it is not good enough. Ms. Amundsen stated they are not trying to be difficult neighbors, and it is not an issue with the neighbor, but is rather an issue with Code enforcement. She stated they want to hold the City responsible, just as they have been held responsible as they have built structures over the years. She stated the issue is that there are restrictions, and people cannot do whatever they want, wherever they want on their property. She stated they have laid out these restrictions fairly clearly, and if this had not happened already, it may have been seen more clearly. Ms. Amundsen stated it is becoming an issue because the poor gentleman has already built this, and this made it more complicated. She stated it is confusing because of the dilemma that a parry was allowed to do something and got this far. Mayor Marty stated his concern with someone that pulls a permit for a fence and does not build a fence. Ms. Amundsen asked the Council to take action fairly soon, as the liability is a huge concern. He asked the Council to take some time to discuss the matter and make a decision. Mayor Marty noted that Councilmember Flaherty visited the property, and indicated he would not have a problem giving a variance fora 10 foot fence and asked about the possibility of the City paying for additional fencing. Mayor Many stated that although it would be a nice thought, Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 . the City cannot set a precedent by starting to pay to resolve neighbors' disputes. Mayor Many asked if the League of Minnesota Cities was consulted. Director Ericson commented that City Attorney Riggs and a Staff member spoke with someone at the League of Minnesota Cities in regard to this matter. He deferred the question to City Attorney Riggs. City Attorney Riggs stated that he discussed the matter with the League of Minnesota Cities, and they did not see that the City is in a situation of liability based on the Code. He stated that unfortunately, the Code does have holes. He stated there are a lot of potential solutions to correct the issue. He stated Code is there for public safety to provide a minimum level of protection. Ms. Amundsen stated she did not present the Code oversights in the packet because they have not found all of them. She noted they have presented some additional Code violations in regard to these setbacks and defining a terrace. She stated this is a stronger argument legally, while the other area is gray. She stated the fact remains that there have been some Code violations, and the City has the responsibility to enforce Code. City Attorney Riggs stated the legislature has said that the City is immune even if Code is improperly enforced, not that it was in this case. He stated there is wide latitude of how the language is enforced by the City. He stated Staff has interpreted it one way, and he does not know what the solution is. He stated there is not a perfect answer in this situation because both . parties have a right to do something. He stated the Council could decide that the Code should be interpreted from this day forward with a terrace definition. Ms. Amundsen stated that when residents do things outside of Code, the City has the right to correct the situation. She confirmed with City Attorney Riggs that he has not determined if there has been a violation of Code. City Attorney Riggs stated this is correct. City Attorney Riggs commented this is the way the Staff has interpreted the Code and that is the difference. He stated he is going off Staff interpretation, case law, and the League of Minnesota Cities position on the City's liability. Mr. Amundsen stated their concern was that the permit department was informed by the homeowner that they were hoping to build a parking pad. He stated there are setback requirements that the permit department has said in the past that require a five foot setback. He stated the homeowner approached the City to build a fence, and when the permit department goes out, they find out what the homeowner really wants to do is build a parking pad. He stated the permit department did not tell them about the five foot setback for the parking pad, which is required for all other homeowners. Councilmember Thomas stated Director Ericson stated he informed the resident that the setback for the parking pad was five feet. She stated she is not sure any Code violation has taken place. Mr. Amundsen stated that there is a record of the City citing this homeowner for parking a car that was unlicensed and untagged on that parking pad. He stated not only has the homeowner Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 • said he was going to park a car there, but in fact did. Councilmember Thomas asked if a car is parked there right now. Mr. Amundsen replied there is not, but the homeowner's future intent is clear. Councilmember Thomas asked if the issue with the retaining wall is that a car might someday park there in the future, or if it is the retaining wall's existence and the height itself. Mr. Amundsen stated it is the retaining wall's existence and the issue of public safety. He stated he would have to spend significant dollars to fix the fence because of something that occurred due to my neighbor. He stated he should not be obligated to do something because of what his neighbor has done. He needs to do this to protect his liability and his liability insurance. Councilmember Thomas stated she was not sure that is true. She stated there is not enough information, and is unclear if a violation has occurred. She stated the City does not know what the definition of a retaining wall is, because there is a hole in the Code in regard to this item. Councilmember Gunn asked where the neighbor is, as only one side of the story has been presented, and the whole picture is not available. Ms. Amundsen indicated they did not tell the neighbor that they were coming to the City Council with the matter. Mr. Amundsen stated that the neighbor told him get off his property when he asked if the terrace could be reduced. Ms. Amundsen commented that the City could have notified the neighbor, and did not feel that it was her responsibility to contact the neighbor. Councilmember Stigney asked about the setback for a fence. Director Ericson stated it cannot be on the property line. Councilmember Stigney stated Staff needs to look at the information that was provided to see what the next step is. He stated he understands the whole picture, but does not know the resolution and it cannot be resolved tonight. He stated it should be turned over to Staff and legal counsel and readdressed in two weeks. Ms. Amundsen stated this would be acceptable. City Administrator Ulrich suggested that the matter be brought back in two weeks, and notification of the meeting would be given to the adjacent property owner. Mayor Marty stated the worst case scenario would be that the height of the fence could be extended. Councilmember Thomas stated she would hate to have the Amundsens make that expense before a decision is made. She stated she does not think it is the Amundsens' responsibility until Staff determines what is going on. City Attorney Riggs stated there are not liability issues on the Amundsens' part or on the City Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 18 • part. He stated this may be an issue with private homeowners insurance, and that is something else to look at. He stated the City Code does not ensure what private insurance may require. He stated perhaps Staff could discuss the matter with the neighbor to see if there can be some sort of compromise, since there is potential cost to be expended on both sides. Councilmember Gunn asked what the insurance company said. Ms. Amundsen stated the insurance company indicated it is an exceptional situation. She stated that the Code violation with the setback requirement is a more sensible way to approach this. She stated one is not going to lean over two feet to get to the fence. She asked that the definition of retaining wall versus terrace be reviewed. She stated this is the best option, so they can have a six foot high fence and it would also eliminate gulley, which is already filling up with debris. She stated the City needs to see if there has been a Code violation. Mayor Marty stated this definitely needs to be referred to the Planning Commission to clean up the Code regarding fences, retaining walls, terraces, and the related setbacks. He stated clarification is needed so it does not happen again. Councilmember Gunn suggested the issue be discussed at the next worksession on Apri13, 2006. City Attorney Riggs stated Staff has looked at a lot of the legal issues associated with this. He stated it is a unique situation, and this is one that is not covered in the City Code. G. Amending Resolution 6756 to Authorize Plans and Specifications for a Sidewalk on the east side of Silver Lake Road between County Road H and County Road H2 for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project. Director of Public Works Lee explained Resolution 6756 was approved on February 27, 2006 for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project. He indicated the resolution did not specifically state what side the sidewalk should be placed on, although the City Council indicated a preference for the east side. He stated the resolution needs to be amended with this specification. Director of Public Works Lee explained the City Council requested options for the sidewalk on the segment adjacent to Silver View Park. He reviewed the options, which consisted of Option Al for a sidewalk coming through the park to avoid the wetlands ($53,600), Option A2 which is the same as Option Al with the addition of security lighting ($109,600), Option B for a sidewalk along the boulevard which would go through the wetlands ($252,000), and Option C for an elevated boardwalk along the boulevard ($337,540). Director of Public Works Lee noted another option would be to have a sidewalk along the park entrance driveway for $21,600. He recommends this be added as a bid alternate to get bids to see if it should be pursued. Director of Public Works Lee stated these options were considered by the Park and Recreation Commission, and they recommend Option B. He commented that Staff is looking for input from the City Council on what option to prepare plans and specifications for. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 19 Councilmember Stigney stated the City should look at the cost to build the sidewalk on the west side of the street since the cost is now up to $252,000. He stated that no one is going to walk through the park, so the sidewalk needs to go straight across on either side. Councilmember Stigney asked what the Park and Recreation Commission's suggestion was to pay for this. Mayor Marty and Director of Public Works Lee stated it would come out of TIF. Councilmember Stigney stated TIF is not an unlimited pool. Mayor Marty stated it is not an unlimited pool, but the City needs to make some expenditures. Councilmember Stigney stated the City should make some expenditures, but should concentrate on streets and construction rather than pathways. Councilmember Gunn stated that the City always knew it would be more because of the area. Director of Public Works Lee stated a lot of the cost is for the wetland issues and moving the ditch. He stated the same problems were encountered further to the south. Councilmember Thomas stated from a safety and practicality standpoint, the City cannot do anything but Option B. She stated the City cannot, provide good service by putting residents through a safety hazard situation. Mayor Marty stated that even if a park trail with security lighting is done, or a sidewalk along the park entrance driveway, they will all cost money. He stated the City needs to do the rational and safe thing. He recalled Councilmember Flaherty's comment during the last meeting that his wife would not follow the sidewalk into the park. Councilmember Thomas stated people would continue walking on the road, which would lead to even a bigger safety issue. Mayor Marty stated the City will be spending money on this section no matter what option is chosen, but Option B is the only logical and safe option. Councilmember Stigney asked what the total cost estimate of the west side versus the east side with Option B. Director of Public Works Lee stated the east side would be $521,000 and the west side would be $368,000. Councilmember Thomas wondered what option the cost of the west side was based on. Director of Public Works Lee stated it was basically for Option A1. Councilmember Stigney stated the cost is doubled by going on the east side of the street. He stressed that the cost for the sidewalk on the west side should be reviewed again. He asked if there is some reason that this matter has to be resolved tonight. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 20 • l~ ~J Director of Public Works Lee stated if the project is going to happen in 2006, the Council needs to keep moving on this. He explained there would be the same issues on the west side Councilmember Thomas stated the cost estimates for the west side of the street does not figure in the additional wetland construction costs. Director of Public Works Lee stated that there are wetlands on both sides of the road north of County Road H2. Councilmember Thomas asked if there would be a similar cost increase on the west side with a similar boardwalk. Director of Public Works Lee stated that is correct. Councilmember Stigney asked to see the costs for the west side to review the feasibility and practicality. He stated it is premature to try to resolve this tonight. Mayor Marty commented that this project was promised to the citizens of Mounds View in 1994, and it is time to get the project done. He recommended that Option B be selected to get the project going. Councilmember Stigney stated that regardless of cost, going ahead to get something done is not the right thing to do at this time. Councilmember Thomas stated that cost is not the only factor, but there are other factors still in place that lead her to choose the east side. She stated she does not like spending that much money, but the Council should not delay the decision, as construction costs will only increase. She recommended the project move forward with Option B. MOTION/SECOND: GLTNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and amend Resolution 6756 to Authorize Plans and Specifications for a Sidewalk on the east side of Silver Lake Road between County Road H and County Road I for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project by proceeding with Option B. Councilmember Stigney stated TIF will be discussed at the worksession on Wednesday, and that without determining the costs on the west side, the Council is rushing things too much. He stated there is no reason that the decision could not be delayed for a week or two to get final estimates and to make a comparison back and forth. He stated total TIF expenditures that will be spent throughout the City could all be reviewed at once. Councilmember Gunn stated information supporting the sidewalk on the east side was received from the neighborhood meeting. Councilmember Thomas stated the preference was fairly significant for the sidewalk on the east side. Ayes - 3 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 21 H. Resolution 6786 Approving the Preliminary Feasibility Report, Waiving Public Improvement Hearing, Holding a Public Informational Meeting, Ordering the Project, and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project. Director of Public Works Lee explained this is for utility extensions for six lots on Hidden Hollow South Street. He stated the estimated cost of the improvement is $150,000, and all costs will be borne by the developer except for the trail extension, which is $4,200 that will be assigned to the City's water and sanitary sewer budget. Mayor Marty asked what the purpose is of having a public information hearing after the project has already been ordered. Director of Public Works Lee stated public input is usually received on the same night that the City Council takes action on an item. Councilmember Thomas stated lots of input has already been received from the neighborhood, and the sooner the problems are fixed, the better. She stated the City should go ahead with this, as the neighbors are well aware of the issue and they want to see it happen. • MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6786 Approving the Preliminary Feasibility Report, Waiving Public Improvement Hearing, Holding a Public Informational Meeting, Ordering the Project, and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project, as amended. Mayor Marty stated after hearing about the different kinds of fill that was put in over the last several years, and after seeing the site and how much higher it was than other properties, he indicated he would like to get the project going. He stated the feasibility report considers grading, proposed infiltration basin, and existing swales, so there is some water control for the area. He stated right now it is an accident waiting to happen. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Councilmember Thomas asked when the date of the public informational hearing would be. Director of Public Works Lee stated it would be in four to six weeks. G. Resolution 6787 Authorization of the Execution of Easements Associated with the County Road J Improvement Project. Director of Public Works Lee explained that the County is requesting a ponding easement and a temporary construction easement from the City. He commented that neither one of easements will impact any future development of SYSCO Outlot A. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 22 Mayor Marty asked if the County will be digging out the pondmg easement. Director of Public Works Lee stated the County will be digging some of it out, as well as creating a pond to retain water. Mayor Marty asked who will pay for this. Director of Public Works Lee stated it will be paid by the County Road J project. He commented it is a requirement of Rice Creek Watershed District. City Attorney Riggs stated the final language in the easement would need to include a statement that references the deed the City received for SYSCO Outlot A, because it had a right of reverter if the City did not use it for certain purposes. He commented that Staff contacted SYSCO and they did not see a problem with that language, but the easement should have one statement that references any right that is granted to the County that is subject to the right of reverter on the additional deed. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GLJNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6787 Authorization of the Execution of Easements Associated with the County Road J Improvement Project. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. • 8. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Gunn left the meeting at 9:19 p.m. Councilmember Stigney asked to remove Items B, C and D. Mayor Marty asked to remove Item E. A. Licenses for Approval R n°~°~..~;°„ L^I^lA A...,.. +I,.. D. 1. F D 1 t AR ~ +l. Y. s_.,~.,... ..., , , , ~l,r. o ~ ~a~ I~-S~*e~ea~g-fe~A~e.,a~^",~....;~ ~ n~ ~nn~ t-~$~~~te-E6n~ic~~~ MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and approve Consent Agenda Item A. Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Absent - 1 (Gunn) Motion carved. Councilmember Gunn returned to the meetin at 9:22 .m. g p Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 23 8B. Resolutton 6779 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the Parks Division. Councilmember Stigney asked why the old mower was not put in the golf course auction. He stated he spoke with City Administrator Ulrich who indicated the mower would be put up for auction, but the resolution shows it as a trade-in. Director of Public Works Lee stated when it comes to disposal of equipment, it can be put up for auction, but 10 percent is lost to the auctioneer. Councilmember Stigney stated there was a big auction at the golf course with a lot of equipment. Director of Public Works Lee stated this equipment was always scheduled to be traded in, and it could not be disposed of before approval was received to replace it. City Administrator Ulrich pointed out there is the option of putting the equipment in the government surplus auction in Arden Hills. Councilmember Stigney stated the budget was for this year, and it could have came before the Council to indicate if the equipment was put up for bid, this is what is projected to pay. He • questioned if the figures could have been found out well ahead of time. He wondered if the City could have made more money if rt was sold at the golf course auction with a reserve on rt. Councilmember Stigney wondered if putting the equipment up for auction will be beneficial in time and money. Director of Public Works Lee stated it can be done either way, but it could not be sold in the golf course auction because the replacement was not approved in October. He suggested it could be added to the state auction, but pointed out that 10 percent would be lost off the top for the auction fee. Councilmember Stigney asked if other people that sell this item have been contacted to see what could be received on trade. Director of Public Works Lee explained that the State has done that as part of the State bidding process. He explained it is open to anyone who wanted to bid on the item. He stated this is the lowest bid of the item. Councilmember Stigney asked if anyone has been contacted that has sold this device and what the possible trade-in value is, exclusive of the State bidding process. Councilmember Thomas stated the point of using the State bid process is so Staff does not waste time in doing something the State already did. She pointed out the State performs the bid process in larger quantities and provides greater access to those who do the appropriate bidding. She Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 24 • stressed it is a significant waste of Staff time and salary by doubling up on the work that the State has already done. Councilmember Gunn asks what happens to an item if it not sold when it is put up for auction. Director of Public Works Lee stated the City would take back the equipment. City Administrator Ulrich suggested that the equipment could be taken to the dealer to receive the trade-in value if it did not sell at auction. Director of Public Works Lee stated the reserve bid could be placed at $1,100 to make up for the 10 percent auction charge, but for $1,000, it is a lot more time and effort hauling the equipment back and forth to auction. Finance Director Beer stated that sales tax could be deducted if a trade-in is received from the dealer, so the reserve price would need to be increased even more. Councilmember Thomas stated that the City would have to wait to buy the replacement mower until it is determined if the old mower is sold at auction. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6779 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the Parks Division. A es-4 Na s- n i y y 0 Motio carr ed. Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to see that the State bid process is in the City's benefit because he has nothing to back it up. He stated he would like a comfort level that the State is really doing something. City Administrator Ulrich stated that the point Councilmember Stigney is trying to make is that the State bid is not always the lowest price. He commented that sometimes deals can be obtained from the dealer or if it is late in the bidding year, products may be discounted, particularly electronic goods. He stated this is less common on durable goods such as mowers. He stated electronics prices can be volatile. City Administrator Ulrich stressed that he relies on Staff to conduct the proper research to determine if it is a good price. 8C. Resolution 6779 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Mower for the Parks Division. Councilmember Stigney stated he had the same questions as on Item 8C. He stated the cost of the previous item was $9,080, while the cost of this item is $18,629. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 6780 Approving the Purchase of a Utility Cart for the Parks Division. • Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 25 8D. Resolution 6783 Autho ' in riz g Step Increases for Officer Tunothy Wolf and Officer Keith Demarest. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To approve Resolution b783 Authorizing Step Increases for Officer Timothy Wolf and Officer Keith Demarest. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, Apri110, 2006 at 7:05 p.m. to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Facility at 4889 Old Highway 8. Director Ericson explained there is a pending purchase agreement for the Skyline Motel property. He explained the applicant is seeking to redevelop the site and construct an environmental processing facility that would treat household, commercial and industrial waste. He stated there will be septage involved and the processing would remove the water from the waste that comes into the facility and the clean water would go into the Met Council Sanitary System, as opposed to septage, industrial waste and other types of material. Director Ericson stated it is an internal process and the applicant is building nothing outdoors, so there will be no noise, no storage, and no smells. He stated it is a unique and complex process. He stated the end product will be purchased by buyers to use for biomass fuel, fertilizer and other uses or sent to a Landfill. He stated the product will be delivered off-site, so no product is stored on site. Director Ericson explained that one issue that Staff and the Planning Commission raised is the matter of potential odors from the site. He stated this is a facility that does treat septage. He explained the facility will be constructing a biofilter, which would treat the air that is exposed to the smell of product in the facility, and released into the atmosphere. He stated the understanding is that one could stand on top of the biofilter and not smell anything. Director Ericson stated there are only two facilities like this in the country, so it is a rather new type of operation. He stated there is another operation that treats septage in Wisconsin that has not had a good tract record, but it is an outdoor operation and the product is stored outdoors, so it is not the same type of operation. Director Ericson stated the City is holding an informational neighborhood meeting with Townsedge Terrace Park on March 30, 200b, and City Staff will also inspect a biofilter in Woodbury. He commented the Met Council is excited about the prospect of this type of facility, as it will allow four existing dump sites to close. He stated Met Council desires to have the product treated so it is not entered into the system without any controls or checks and balances. Director Ericson stated the benefit to Met Council and to the City and its residents is that there will be less treatment involved, and it would be the private sector to deal with this problem rather than the government. He explained Met Council would treat facilities in the north metropolitan area. He stated there would be increased truck traffic at most by nine to ten vehicles an hour, Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 26 C~ • • depending on the time of the year. Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission examined all issues and recommended approval, recognizing there are mechanisms that can be instituted with a conditional use permit to control for noise or odors if there is a problem. He stated the conditional use permit Public Hearing is set for April 10, 2006. Director Ericson stated Staff is willing to keep an open mind as to this type of use and the potential benefit to the City. He added it is industrial zoned property that is consistent with the zoning Code with a conditional use permit. Mayor Marty suggested this matter be an agenda item for the Apri13, 2006 worksession. Councilmember Stigney stated there is no mechanism to measure odor. He questioned on what basis the facility would be shut down if it there were complaints about odor. He stated by dumping the septage, the water goes into the sanitary sewer, and he wondered if residents of the City are going to have to pay for this. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To Set a Public Hearing for Monday, April 10, 2006 at 7:05 p.m. to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Environmental Processing Facility at 4889 Old Highway 8. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS Councilmember Stigney referenced check #118141 for $17,467 for installation of flooring and asked if it was for the gymnasium. Finance Director Beer stated it was related to the water line break in the daycare center from last year. Councilmember Stigney asked if any was covered by insurance. Finance Director Beer stated it was and the City has already received a reimbursement of $20,000. He stated the total claim was over $30,000 and there was a $10,000 deductible. Councilmember Stigney referenced check #118155 for $669 for ice machine repair. Director of Public Works Lee stated it was for the compressor on the ice machine to be changed out. Mayor Marty referenced check # 118151 for $142 for an alarm battery. Finance Director Beer stated he will get back to Mayor Marty. Mayor Marty referenced check #118159 in regard to the items for Medtronic project for $4,923 and Tax Increment District #5 for $4,290, and wondered if both are reimbursable. Finance Director Beer stated they are. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 27 . Mayor Marty referenced check # 118170 in regard to the items for Brides Redevelopment for $10,911 and Sysco expansion for $1,223, and wondered if both are reimbursable. Finance Director Beer stated they are. Councilmember Stigney referenced check #118184 for $6,482 to North Metro Mayors Association for membership fees, and asked what period of time it covers. Finance Director Beer stated it covers the 2006 calendar year. Councilmember Stigney wondered if the City is getting a benefit of $6,482 by being members of that association. Councilmember Stigney referenced check #118194 for $600 to Donald Salverda & Associates for the Effective Management Program, and asked if the City is getting a benefit of $600. City Administrator Ulrich stated yes, and explained it provides contacts with other managers throughout the year and provides training. He stated they talk about different opportunities in the metropolitan area and review best practices. City Administrator Ulrich stated it gives him a good idea of what is going on throughout the metropolitan area. Mayor Marty asked if it is a one-time charge for the year. City Administrator Ulrich stated that it is, and the group meets six times per year. Councilmember Stigney referenced check #118197 for $706 for fender painting for vehicle #706. Director of Public Works Lee stated that rt is a water utility truck that hrt a post when rt was backing up. Councilmember asked if it was a new truck. Director of Public Works Lee stated it is a 2000 or 2001 vehicle. Councilmember Stigney wondered if the repair was required to fix the dent. Director of Public Works Lee stated it was. Councilmember Stigney wondered why repairs are done on older vehicles. Director of Public Works Lee commented that the truck looks new and the City would like to keep it in that condition as long as possible. He indicated they would hammer out the dent if it would have been an older vehicle. Councilmember Gunn referenced check #118207 in regard to the item for the Golf Course for $385, and wondered why the City is still paying an electric bill for the golf course. Finance Director Beer explained there were -some expenses continuing with the clubhouse until it was disconnected and there was also some bills related to the outbuilding that the City will seek reimbursement from Opus. MOTION/SECOND: GUNK/MARTY. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. Ayes - 4 Na s - 0 Motion carried. Y Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 28 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 13, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/STIGNEY. To Approve the March 13, 2006 City Council meeting minutes as corrected and with corrections that Staff received. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council Mayor Marty stated the former golf course clubhouse has been moved to Random Park. He stated that it looks like it fits in pretty well, and the building did not break and fall apart like some people thought it might. B. Reports of Staff 1. Director of Public Works Lee cb a. Update Report regarding March 9 neighborhood meetmg (County Highway 10) Director of Public Works Lee noted that 17 people attended the meeting. He indicated the next step is to study the draft capital improvement program, which will be done at the next worksession meeting. b. County Road 10 Monument Project -Letter Proposal Director of Public Works Lee indicated the letter proposal has not been received, and hoped to review it at the next worksession meeting. c. Oakwood Park Proposed Improvements -Letter Proposal Director of Public Works Lee stated this item was reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission, and they made the motion to not go forward at this time, as they .wanted additional information of what the total project costs will be. Mayor Marty noted that $14,000 for a feasibility study of a field without a structure, even though there are underground culverts and drainage issues, seems kind of expensive. Director of Public Works Lee stated Staff will look into the item further and report back at the next City Council meeting. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 29 2. Community Development Director Ericson a. Update Report on Harstad/Red Oak Estates #3 Director Ericson presented a report on the Harstad/Red Oak Estates #3 project. He stated he was surprised and saddened at how many trees were actually removed, as he did not anticipate every single tree would be removed from the site. He stated he contacted Rice Creek Watershed to see if they had any problems with the tree removal from the wetland site, but they indicated they only regulate the wetlands and not the trees. Director Ericson explained he has been in contact with every property owner of the existing towh home building and all owners would prefer to not have a swimming pool and tennis court. He stated the only way they cannot have a swimming pool and tennis court however, is if City Council agrees to absolve Mr. Harstad of that requirement. He indicated Mr. Harstad would be willing to submit the cash value of the construction of tennis court and swimming pool for Park and Recreation Commission purposes. He noted Mr. Harstad is planning to restore the site and will submit a landscape plan. Councilmember Stigney asked if taking trees out of the area would degrade the watershed. • Councilmember Thomas stated it gets back into what is allowed as changes from the original court order issue. She stated she hates to tamper with anything that changes a set up when she does not know what the end result of the legal connotations will be. Councilmember Gunn wondered about the property owners that are already there. Councilmember Thomas stated they originally bought houses there assuming there would be a swimming pool and tennis courts built. Councilmember Gunn wondered if all the original owners are still there. b. Update Report on Tree Preservation Ordinance Director Ericson indicated that Staff has been working on the ordinance to address tree preservation, tree removal, and forest management process, based on what the City Council directed last year. He indicated Staff should have something to the City Council for review within a month. c. Reconstruction of Ordinance 769 Director Ericson stated that he would like the Council to consider recalling the approval of Ordinance 769 based on the need to perhaps to add additional language regarding the number of billboards in the community. He stated the way the ordinance is drafted, it leaves anopen-ended possibility of the number of signs. He stated that he needs to talk with City Attorney Riggs to Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 30 develop language for this item to set limits on the number of billboards. He indicated this would be brought back to the next meeting. City Attorney Riggs stated the timing gap will cause problems, and there will be holes in certain things unless the proper timing of events occurs. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To reconsider the adoption of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To postpone the adoption of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards, to April 10, 2006. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 3. City Administrator Ulrich City Administrator Ulrich presented a report on the Canyon Grill. He reviewed that the Council previously authorized a $2,000 per month lease payment, and the City is not having any luck reaching final agreement for that. He stated Canyon Grill indicated they wanted to lower the lease payment to $1,000 and not pay taxes. He stated the relationship needs to be dissolved and perhaps space should be rented on an hourly basis and have the church make a payment directly to the City. He noted the long term agreement with Canyon Grill will expire on April 1, 2006. City Administrator Ulrich suggested the Chamber may want to lease a little more space, and starting January 1, 2007, the space will be tax-exempt. Mayor Marty noted there are three or four weddings scheduled for the banquet center. City Administrator Ulrich indicated Canyon Catering would be kept as the caterer and the City would charge him a room rental rate. Councilmember Thomas asked if the church is interested in continuing to lease the space directly. City Administrator Ulrich replied he was meeting with the church this week, and will provide an update at that time. C. Reports of City Attorney None. 12. Nezt Council Work Session: Negt Council Meeting: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. (Special Work Session) Monday, Apri110, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Mounds View City Council March 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 31 • 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Transcribed by: Annette Anderson Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ~~ ~J •