Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2006/07/10 (2)• PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 10, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Acting Mayor Stigney, Councilmember Gunn, Councilmember Flaherty, and Councilmember Thomas. Mayor Marty arrived at 7:44 p.m. NOT PRESENT: None. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • A. Monday, July 10, 2006 City Council Agenda MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Monday, July 10, 2006 agenda as presented. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC INPUT David Jhanke, 8428 Eastwood Road, asked what has been done regarding the Community Center and additional RFPs. Administrator Ulrich stated the item is scheduled for the July 17~' Work Session. Mr. Jhanke asked if the Council has done anything to find out if there were any other potential uses or if the City will go ahead and spend the money. Administrator Ulrich replied that Staff has discussed other options. He added one party may be interested in renting space and there may be another process, which will be discussed in more detail on the 17~'. Councilmember Thomas stated there was not enough discussion time to determine a direction at the last Council meeting and no direction has been given to Staff. • Councilmember Flaherty added the Council decided to table the discussion until there was a full Council at the work session to discuss whether there should be requests for more RFPs. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 • Mr. Jhanke thanked the Council and added he does not care how long someone talks as long as is said in few words. Acting Mayor Stigney noted he had asked Economic Development Coordinator Backman if he has looked into any alternate options for the Community Center and he hopes Economic Development Coordinator Backman brings something forth on the 17th. Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he objects to the time limit on public comments. Acting Mayor Stigney stated that in acting practice, the Council appreciates comments and listens to citizens' full concerns. He explained why there is a 3-minute limit. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS There were none. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6875 Approving an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 Community Development Director Ericson stated that before the Council is a request from Clear Channel Outdoor for a billboard at the Mermaid location. He stated the City of Mounds View adopted an ordinance dictating where billboards could be located. He stated the Council recommended the site at 2200 County Road 10 as a place where a billboard could be relocated. He stated this is one of the sites where Clear Channel has a lease. Director Ericson stated on June 21St and July 4th, the Planning Commission approved the CUP but had issues with the questions regarding visibility. He stated that a neighboring property owner did not have issues with the billboard as long as it was 45 feet high. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission did not approve the variance of 45 feet citing lack of hardship. He added that Clear Channel has appealed the decision. Director Ericson pointed out the table shown in the Staff Report regarding the requirements and noted all are satisfied except for the height requirement. Director Ericson stated the City is considering various criteria such as adverse effects and the Planning Commission has done the first half of the work. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission has considered the following criteria: 1.Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan; • 2.The geographical area involved; 3.Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed, 4.The character of the surrounding area; and Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 i S.The demonstrated need for such use. Director Ericson stated the billboard has been deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which does not support billboards. The area is commercial/industrial and there is not any residential zoning in close proximity. He stated Staff did not feel the billboard would depreciate the value of the land on which it is located, but there is a concern about depreciation of the adjoining property. Director Ericson noted Clear Channel has a demonstrated need for the parcel because it is required to relocate four billboards and the Council has authorized a billboard for the indicated location. Director Ericson stated the proposed use would not cause a burden on the City. He stated the billboard would be separated from residential properties and, therefore, would not have an adverse effect. Director Ericson stated it is awell-traveled road. He stated that the after the interpretation of the need and values of the City, the billboard has been deemed consistent with the zoning code. He stated literally speaking, it is not conflicting with the Comprehensive Plan and it would not affect traffic, necessary roads, or utilities. Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission felt there are some visibility issues and potential for obstruction that would be experienced by the adjoining property owner. He further • noted that the Planning Commission felt there are other locations on County Road 10 that are less detrimental to the adjoining property. Director Ericson stated property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified of the public hearing. He explained that the City Council needs to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and determine if the billboard is something that should be allowed. He stated the variance will be discussed at the next meeting. Director Ericson stated the draft resolution would deny the CUP based on the reasoning from the Planning Commission. He stated the Council has so far determined the site is consistent where a billboard could be located. He stated the site satisfies all issues except for the 45-foot variance, which was denied by the Planning Commission. Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, asked Director Ericson if all requirements have been satisfied except the question of a potential depreciation problem with the adjoining property. Director Ericson responded that Mr. Hall provided a good summary for the basis of the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission is worried about the obstructions with the adjoining properties and the proposed location was not the best location on County Road 10. He answered Mr. Hall's question stating all code requirement are met but the potential depreciation is the basis for the Planning Commission's denial. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 • Mr. Hall asked if the depreciation was at 35 or 45 feet. Director Ericson responded the Planning Commission felt there was an issue with obstruction at either height. He added that one member of the Planning Commission voted against the variance recommending denial because they believed the billboard may be better at 45 rather than 35 feet. Mr. Hall asked when the Planning Commission discussed depreciation at 45 feet. He stated the adjoining property owner is okay with the billboard at 45 feet. He appreciated the clarification from Director Ericson. Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he was at the Planning Commission meeting and there was not much confusion. He recalled that the Interim Use Permit (IUP) was denied and there were two issues on the agenda, one dealing with the height limit. He stated ILJP request was denied and Acting Mayor Stigney concurred. Mr. Glidden pointed out the Planning Commissioners are volunteer citizens and they made the decision that the City has a limit of one billboard on County Road 10. He stated the discussion centered around the issue and therefore, the decision was made to deny the proposed billboard near the Mermaid. Richard Sontaire, 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, thanked Mr. Glidden for his comments. He stated Mr. Glidden's comments are more accurate in terms of the Planning Commission's rationale for denial. He stated that there was considerable discussion regarding depreciation at the June meeting. Mr. Sontaire stated the Planning Commission's concern arose because Mr. Coups (an adjoining property owner) expressed uncertainty. Mr. Sontaire stated that upon receipt of a letter from Mr. Copus in July, there was no further discussion at the Planning Commission regarding the valuation of the property. Mr. Sontaire noted the July Planning Commission discussion focused far more on personal opinions about billboards. He stated there was hardly any discussion about the actual code. He added that the location proposed for the billboard was chosen by the Council and the Planning Commission discussed alternative locations. Mr. Sontaire explained that the location the property owner determined for the billboard is consistent with code. He added that at the July 5~' Planning Commission meeting, no person spoke at the podium regarding depreciation. He said that Director Ericson stated billboards on County Road 10 will impact the residents of Mounds View. He noted that over 30,000 people use the road and Ramsey County treats it as an arterial. He stated that a low percentage of the vehicles passing the billboard will be Mounds View residents. Acting Mayor Stigney closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Acting Mayor Stigney commented that Mr. Copus currently owns the property, but the CUP is Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 granted for 30 years. He noted the perpetual Wallgreens billboard. He added that there is the potential for a detrimental effect to the property owner next to the Mermaid regardless of who owns it. Councilmember Flaherty stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Copus would be brought in on the conversation much earlier. He stated his belief that the Council is trying to meet Clear-Channel half-way if they approve the site. He explained that it was well-known that the City would not allow the 45-foot billboard because the City has a precedent and stated that was one of the factors he considered when he voted to approve the billboard on the Wallgreens site. Councilmember Flaherty asked what would happen if a vote was taken. Director Ericson stated the Council could act tonight to deny the resolution or ask Staff to draft a new one. Councilmember Flaherty stated as the resolution sits, he would support the denial based on the height. Councilmember Thomas clarified that the Council is not discussing height. Councilmember Flaherty stated as it sits, he would have to support the denial on the height. Councilmember Thomas clarified that they are not discussing the height. Councilmember Flaherty asked Mr. Sontaire if another site to the south could be considered. Mr. Sontaire replied that he appreciates the concerns and that there have been extensive conversations with Mr. Coups. He stated he does not make decisions regarding locations and the proposed location has been deemed acceptable by Clear Channel. Regarding the height, Mr. Sontaire stated at 35 feet, the billboard could be built without a variance. He stated the application for the variance was made because it was determined at 45 feet, the billboard would have less negative impact. Mr. Hall stated that future use plans for the front corner of the property include a tall structure. He apologized for not including Copus in the conversations earlier. He stated that Acting Mayor Stigney made an excellent point about the property being old and suggested the billboard could attract a new company. ~e-l~~l~eo~d-E^~•'Et-a~eu~se~-y-Same as previous paragraph Councilmember Thomas stated she watched the Planning Commission meeting and the problem is how to separate the question facing the Council currently vs. future questions. She clarified that the current question under consideration is whether or not the permit is up to code and acceptable. She stated she believes it is a poor decision to deny the CUP based on other discussion. She stated her belief that the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial was not based on answering the current question, but was based on other issues entirely. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 C7 • Acting Mayor Stigney stated he agreed with the Planning Commission's decision that the billboard would affect the adjoining property in a detrimental way. He stated the property owner is creating the hardship by not relocating the billboard. Councilmember Gunn stated that, looking at the rendering of the billboard, it looks to her like at either height, and the billboard would not obstruct the adjoining building. She stated she does not see the total obstruction or depreciation that would take place. Councilmember Gunn stated she agrees with Councilmember Thomas that the issue is that the billboards have to be moved somewhere and the spot in question is one that the Council determined was acceptable. She stated the Council had to work in a "good faith" initiative to move the billboards. She stated the Council was not happy about the billboard on Highway 10, but agreed the spot in question would be the least intrusive. She stated she does not support the denial of the NP. Mayor Marty arrived at 7:44 p.m. and chaired the remainder of the meeting. Councilmember Thomas stated, regarding the depreciation, that if Mr. Hall decided to plant a tree, not a single person at the table would claim the neighboring property would be depreciated because visibility was blocked. She added that to claim depreciation is caused by one thing or another is amake-believe reason to justify not approving the billboard. She stated she does not see any way the IUP violates code. MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6875 denying an Interim Use Permit for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10. Ayes - 2 Nays - 3 (Thomas, Flaherty, Gunn) Motion failed. Councilmember Thomas asked Staff to bring back a resolution for approval of the IUP and addressing the height variance to the next meeting. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the Interim Use Permit for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 that addresses the height limit for consideration at the next meeting. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. B. 7:10 pm Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6876 Approving an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 5201 Program Avenue • Director Ericson stated this discussion is similar to the last one. He explained where the billboard would be located and that it was one of the sites the City identified as a potential site for a relocated billboard. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission considered potential for adverse effects at the Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 • location and did not identify any. He stated the Planning Commission considered a reduced setback variance and explained that there is a storm water management pond at the northeast corner of the property forcing the billboard to be set back 5 feet from the property line, which is 30 feet from the roadway. He stated the City Engineer Technician and Public Works Director Lee did not anticipate a problem. Director Ericson stated Staff recommends approval of the resolution and variance. The property owners within 350 feet were notified and adjoining property owners have no problems with the billboard. Director Ericson stated the billboard would require a permit from MNDot and there is an additional approval process beyond Mounds View's City Council. He stated the resolution has been provided for the Council's review and the City Attorney suggested additional language be added to the resolution indicating there is an easement in the location and that the City acknowledges the easement and consents to the billboard's location. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Hearing no public input, Mayor Many closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Councilmember Gunn requested that after sixth "whereas," the words "requires that" be removed • and the additional language as under number 3 is added. Director Ericson suggested alternate language "The City of Mounds View hereby consents to the sighting of the requested billboard within the City's utility and drainage easement for as long as the Interim Use Permit is in force and so long as said billboard does not interfere with the City's present or future use of the easement area." Director Ericson stated there are a few additional concerns about trees and the heights. Councilmember Flaherty asked for clarification regarding the impact of the Council approving the letter about the removal of trees. Director Ericson stated there is a request to remove some scrub trees in the MNDot right-of--way. He stated the City is being asked for a letter of consent to the removal of the trees if MNDot approves the request. Director Ericson stated the concern is that the trees will grow to a height that will interfere with the billboard. He stated the City is recommending removal of the trees. Mr. Sontaire stated the trees are mostly cottonwood and there are a few pine trees. He stated of the trees, six are dead or dying and consistent with MNDot's past practice, those will be removed. He stated the trees were not planted by MNDot to serve as a screen. He stated there is a very strong likelihood that the tree removal will be approved by MNDot and the request is strengthened with support from the City. • Mayor Marty stated he supports a billboard in the area and removal of the trees. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 • MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6876 Approving an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 5201 Program Avenue as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mayor Marty asked if a letter should be drafted and Director Ericson replied it would be. The Council reached consensus that a letter supporting removal of the trees be drafted by staff. C. 7:15 pm Public Hearing to Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 775 Vacating an Excess Highway Easement Associated with the Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision. Director Ericson stated this is the second reading of the ordinance that would vacate the highway easement dedicated to the City in the 1960s. He stated the County rejected the plat for the Hidden Hollow because the easement was there and it requires vacation. Director Ericson stated there is no desire for a street in the location and it is the City's recommendation to vacate the area. He stated notices were sent to residents within 350 feet and they are requesting a letter be sent with a summary of the ordinance. . Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Hearing no public input, Mayor Marry closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Councilmember Thomas asked if it requires a roll call vote since it was a second reading. Director Ericson stated it does require a roll call vote. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 775 Vacating an Excess Highway Easement Associated with the Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision. ROLL CALL VOTE: MARTY -Aye STIGNEY -Aye GUNN -Aye FLAHERTY -Aye THOMAS -Aye Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. 7:20 pm Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6859 an Outdoor Liquor Consumption Endorsement for Moe's located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 Administrator Ulrich stated that this item is an application for new owners of the restaurant, formerly known as Jakes, for an outdoor liquor sales and consumption permit after the change of the ordinance effective June 4, 2006. Administrator Ulrich stated it is recommended this be approved. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Hearing no public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Mayor Marty stated he thinks it would be a nice addition in the area. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6859 an Outdoor Liquor Consumption Endorsement for Moe's located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. E. 7:25 pm Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of a Variance Denial for 2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage Space at 8135 Long Lake Road, Resolution 6878. Director Ericson stated that this item is an application for an appeal of a variance that was denied by the Planning Commission. He stated the applicants have an existing home with an attached garage and they are proposing an accessory building of 1,620 square feet, which would bring the total accessory feet to 2,416 square feet, which is 668 square feet over the amount of square feet allowed. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission discussed the hardship criteria and whether or not the code was causing hardship to the property owner of if the property owner himself was causing the hardship. He stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the issues and the building would be allowed if there were no other accessory buildings on the lot. He stated that because there is an attached garage, the square footage is over the limit. He stated the Planning Commission felt there was not sufficient information to grant the variance. He stated Mr. Slabiak then submitted the denial appeal to the City Council. Director Ericson stated the Council is bound by the same requirements as the Planning Commission regarding the hardship. He stated the Council does have some ability to look subjectively at the hardship criteria, but that both Staff and the Planning Commission agreed that there was not sufficient hardship to grant the variance. He stated the City has not allowed a variance over 1,800 square feet, which is a very generous amount. Director Ericson stated the request is not typical and approval sets a precedent that is contrary to the purposes of the code. He stated his recommendation is to deny the variance and noted that a drafted resolution is available. He added that Staff notified residents within 350 feet of the public hearing and the applicants are present to discuss their plans with the Council. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. David Slabiak, 8135 Long Lake Road, asked if he can request more time than the three minutes allowed for public comments. Mayor Marty stated the Council would allow him time to speak to the issue. Mr. Slabiak gave the Council a history of himself and his wife and presented someone to speak on his behalf. He stated he has been a resident of Mounds View for eight years. He explained he has been collecting pinball machines for 20 years and is requesting the building be approved so he has a place to display and share his collection. He noted it would not be open to the public and it is a similar situation to someone who enjoys woodworking. Mr. Slabiak stated when he began plans to construct the building, he spoke with staff at City Hall who informed him such buildings have been allowed. He stated he purchased his home with the idea of building an accessory building. He stated Staff at the front desk gave him the impression that such a request would likely be granted through a CUP. Mr. Slabiak added that when he turned in the CUP, he was informed his proposed building was too big. He stated that when he turned in the variance he was confused, was told he had done everything right, and was under such an impression. • Michael Calusniak suggested Mr. Slabiak's neighbors speak in support of the CUP for the garage. Jim Bower, 8121 Long Lake Road, stated he is Mr. Slabiak's next door neighbor and is not opposed to the building. He stated he believes it is a reasonable request. He added Mr. Slabiak is an excellent, respectful neighbor. Patty Berglean, 8132 Long Lake Road, stated she is also a neighbor of Mr. Slabiak. She stated that to her knowledge, no person can see the backyard of the property. She added she has no problem with the large building and that she does not mind the large pole building in the property adjacent to her backyard. She stated that Mr. Slabiak keeps up his yard and there are many trees that will cover the building if the permit is granted. Jim and Sarah Train, 8145 Long Lake Road, who are neighbors north of the parcel in question, stated they do not object to the proposed building. Mr. Train questioned how the City can have an ordinance related to accessory storage space that does not take into account the size of the property. He stated he has nearly half an acre of properly and asked if the same restrictions that apply to a property 1/8 the size of his apply to his property. Mr. Calusniak stated there were a few items to be clarified from the June 6th Planning Commission meeting. He stated Mr. Slabiak feels he did not receive a fair review of the facts when he was in front of the Planning Commission.. He noted that the property is 2.7 times the minimum lot size required by the City and it is largely undeveloped. He added that the proposed Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 building will not take up a large amount of the land. Mr. Calusniak stated Mr. Slabiak's existing collection will require 1,500 additional square feet and several options were considered, such as knocking down part of the garage or building a 2- story structure. He stated in both cases, the negative impacts were far greater than that of the proposed building. He stated there is not a single negative impact except for the integrity of the current zoning codes. Mr. Calusniak stated the proposal is very reasonable and identified seven hardship criteria, including the property owner's right to use the property as they see fit. He stated such a hardship has been held up in the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He stated the practical difficulties of constructing a building that meets the CUP creates an undue hardship for the property owner and the collection itself warrants such a building. He mentioned the lack of opposition from neighbors and cited several instances in the past where hardship has been granted to several applicants based on similar criteria. Mr. Calusniak went through the exceptional circumstances as defined in the zoning ordinance, which state that "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone." Mr. Calusniak stated that a lot 2.7 times the size of the minimum required is an exceptional circumstance and the codes which are applicable to normal properties should be compromised for such a large lot. He stated other compromises have been made for small lot sizes and he is seeking uniform application of the codes. Mr. Calusniak stated he has identified several other cases in which pre-existing conditions, such as trees, have been considered. He brought up several cases the Planning Commission has approved and that Mr. Slabiak is seeking a uniform application of the codes. He again stated he fails to see direct negative impacts. Mr. Calusniak stated he and Mr. Slabiak are not asking for revisions or changes to the ordinances, but stated it is within the rights of the Council to grant variances. Mr. Calusniak stated the proposal is not unreasonable, it is not inconsistent with the neighborhood, and it does not create hardship for the neighbors. He stated Mr. Slabiak has amassed a significant cultural asset, he is not collecting for profit, and the collection is an asset to the City. He added that Mr. Slabiak is an excellent neighbor and resident. Mr. Calusniak explained that the code is not compromised. He stated there are other issues facing the area and it would be appropriate when considering this request to consider those other issues. He also stated, regarding the hardship criteria, that he has a difficult time understanding a clear precedent and applications approved by the Planning Commission in previous cases have been approved under similar conditions. Mr. Calusniak stated he does not believe Mr. Slabiak created the hardship. He reminded the Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 Council that Mr. Slabiak did not know he had to go through a variance process when he purchased the property. Councilmember Thomas asked the applicant how much square footage the collection currently occupies. Mr. Slabiak presented the Council with a layout of his current collection. He stated the collection currently resides in part of his garage, his lower level, a bedroom, and a storage unit. He stated he does not currently have a display and it will not fit in his current square footage. Mr. Caulsniak and Mr. Slabiak explained the dimensions of the areas that are currently occupied by his collection. Councilmember Thomas stated she is looking for the difference in the space the collection currently occupies versus the square footage for which Mr. Slabiak is asking. Mr. Slabiak responded he would like to clear out some family areas for his expanding family. He added the property owner behind him approves of the building. Councilmember Thomas stated there have been many changes with the allowed accessory building space and all have been to increase allowed accessory storage. She stated the square footage number was put in place to address large lots. She stated there was a significant limitation in the past and the current allowance is much broader and is the most generous amount allowed ever in the City. Councilmember Thomas stated she is in favor of more storage space, but the hardship is of the applicant's creation. Councilmember Thomas explained that the issue is a matter of the design of the building and she does believe a variance is detrimental to the code. She stated the Council should not make a determination based on lot size. She added that the Council takes variances very seriously and she believes the applicant could make the building smaller to satisfy the code. She stated that if the applicant wanted to add on to his house, it would be an entirely different issue. Mayor Marty stated that many discussions have revolved around accessory building in the past and Staff developed a generous accessory building ordinance. He stated he felt at the time that 1,800 square feet was large, but the ordinance has since decreased the amount of time spent discussing such variances. Mr. Slabiak explained that he had considered an addition to his house, but was under the impression that he would be allowed to build the accessory building when he purchased his home. He stated the costs are continually rising for the proposed building and building a home addition would be even more expensive. He stated his wife would like to remove the collection from the home. He also pointed out the building could be used in many different ways if he were to sell the property. Mr. Slabiak stated that within his constraints, the proposed accessory • building is his only option. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 Mr. Calusniak commented that there have been cases in the past where applicants have had similar circumstances that were not determined to have been created by the applicant. He stated if the variance is not approved, he and Mr. Slabiak will have to consider other alternatives, including ales-desirable two-story building. He also suggested the Council reexamine current codes. Councilmember Flaherty stated that Mr. Slabiak is, by all accounts, an excellent neighbor. He stated the Council attempts to accommodate residents, but must also consider the codes. He stated he would be okay with a smaller variance, but he is not okay with such a size request. He added that the Planning Commission has never approved a variance over 1,800 feet. He stated it puts the City in a difficult position because if such a large variance is granted, it could lead to even larger variance requests. Mr. Calusniak stated he understands the concerns of the Council and pointed out that other cities have larger accessory building codes, which should also be considered. Mr. Slabiak asked the Council to appreciate his situation and the difficulty he had obtaining the correct information from City Hall when he first moved to his current property. He stated it would be difficult to sell his home in this market and purchase another property where he could have a large enough accessory square footage. Councilmember Thomas stated that none of the parties at the table believes the property owner's knowledge of the situation before he purchased the home should be factored into the decision. She stated the Council needs to limit the scope of the question before them and cannot address the issue of making the accessory building square footage number larger, even if they wanted to. Councilmember Thomas stated that the City should not consider other questions while answering the one presented. She stated the City has a limit to accessory buildings and she believes the applicant could come back with a 668 square foot smaller building that would work. Mr. Calusniak noted that the pinball machines require a buffer zone and needs the extra 668 square feet. Councilmember Thomas stated she wants to see a demonstrated need for such a large building, which she does not see with the proposed plan. Councilmember Gunn stated she thought a good point was brought up regarding lot sizes when variances are discussed. She explained that she has been following Planning Commission discussions and part of the future of the City is to make its neighborhoods better looking. She noted that there are pole buildings in back yards and that she finds such structures more aesthetically unpleasing than the proposed building. She added there is no way the building will be seen from the road and that the Council should take into consideration lot size when approving or denying such requests. Director Ericson stated one of the reasons the code was amended was to increase square footage in recognition that there are larger lots, which can support larger accessory buildings. He stated there has been some backlash from residents regarding accessory buildings. He explained he Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 does not believe increasing the square footage is necessarily the best option and the reason the ratio for properties versus accessory storage was eliminated is because it was difficult for residents to calculate. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. Councilmember Flaherty commended the presentation and stated he was not sure if it was presented before the Planning Commission. He stated it is a tough call, but since it is such a large overage, he cannot support the building. He asked the applicant to try and work out another proposal that is more workable. Councilmember Gunn asked if the 1,800 square feet is total storage space. She stated that the existing garage is 868 square feet. Director Ericson stated with the current storage square footage, the applicant could build about 900 additional feet without a variance. Councilmember Gunn asked if the building size needs to be reduced to 950 square feet. Director Ericson replied that it does. Councilmember Thomas stated the only other option she sees is if the applicant can work with someone regarding safety, which may be the way Mr. Slabiak can present the hardship to the Council and Planning Commission. She stated there needs to be a more acute hardship in order for the variance to be approved. She asked if the applicant could come back with plans for the smallest safe structure. Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with the Planning Commission and the City must follow code. He stated it is not an issue to change the code at this point and he believes the City must follow the code and deny the appeal. Councilmember Gunn asked if the applicant could build atwo-story building. Director Ericson responded that there is a height limitation of 15 feet which often restricts two-story buildings. He explained how height is measured and that it is theoretically possible that the applicant could build atwo-story building. Mayor Marty stated that the use of the building does not change the code ordinance. He explained that the Council has significantly increased the maximum allowed storage area and he believes the amount may be too generous. He stated in the future, it may be readdressed, but at present, the Council must follow code. Mayor Marty stated he is a stickler for precedence and this decision would set precedence and could result in an influx of large CUP requests. He stated the code could be discussed at a future work session but at the present time, the City must follow the code as written. Mayor Marty suggested a smaller variance request may be allowed closer scrutiny, but a proposal that exceeds the maximum by 37% is too large. He added that he sees no demonstrated hardship. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6878, Denying the Appeal of a Variance Denial for 2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage Space at 8135 Long Lake Road. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. F. 7:30 pm Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6879 Pertaining to a PUD Amendment at 2442 County Road 10 to Add "Print Production and Fabrication Shop" as a Permitted Use and to Add "Attached Accessory Building" as a Permitted Accessory Use. Director Ericson explained that this item is for a change in the PUD for the proposed property. He stated that Landcor has a prospective tenant interested in leasing the entire building and to accommodate the tenant, Landcor would like an accessory building. Mayor Many left the meeting at 9:04 p.m. Director Ericson stated after the Planning Commission reviewed the PUD, he toured the area and said that there is almost an industrial feel to the location. He stated there are many printers and large-scale industrial plotters that would not normally be housed office. He stated that it is a situation where the Planning Commission did not have the information regarding the property and proposed tenant. Director Ericson stated that in 2003, the PUD was allowed for the construction of the building. He stated that when the Planning Commission reviewed the amendment for the addition of the accessory building, it would be allowable considering it was made out of the same building material. Director Ericson stated it would take up some parking stalls, but the office building does have enough stalls. He stated that the Planning Commission supports the accessory building, but it is up to the Council to determine if a print production company is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Director Ericson stated that the Council specifically determined what they would like in the location, a restaurant, but it did not go through. He added that the Council did grant the location use as an office building, but must determine if a print production company is wanted in the location. Director Ericson stated Staff recommends approval. Staff has not received any feedback regarding the property and at this point, it is up to the Council to determine what the City's vision is for the property. Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. Robert Fields, LandCor Construction, gave a brief background of the location. He stated that a Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 change in the PUD allowed an office building. He stated that a company made a deal that fell through and the owners have been seeking a tenant who would utilize the building as an office and have failed. He explained how the building would be used for the print production company He added it is very technical equipment and that the company would like to maintain the professional feel of the building. Mr. Fields stated the fundamental difference between Lets Get Graphic is that there are many professionals employed as graphic designers using on-site computers. He stated that the owners of the company are very excited to be in the community, will be purchasing the building from LandCor, and will be part owners of the retail center. He explained part of the second floor of the building will be leased to professionals. Mayor Marty returned at 9:12 p.m. Mr. Fields stated that they do not have any other potential tenants for the building. Councilmember Flaherty explained that Let's Get Graphic is not a typical printing firm. He questioned how the company disposes of hazardous waste. The owner of Let's Get Graphic stated his company contracts with another company that removes the hazardous waste which is stored in a sealed drum. He stated it is disposed of twice a year and not much hazardous waste is produced. Councilmember Flaherty asked if there is documentation of such removal and the owner replied that there is. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. Councilmember Gunn stated she is glad to have a potential occupant for the building and to see a viable business that plans to be in Mounds View for a while to maintain the building. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6879 Pertaining to a PUD Amendment at 2442 County Road 10 to Add "Print Production and Fabrication Shop" as a Permitted Use and to Add "Attached Accessory Building" as a Permitted Accessory Use. Councilmember Thomas asked about the requirement that this is approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District, and stated that as long as that question is handled, she is willing to vote for the resolution. Councilmember Stigney stated his opposing view that he believes the building is in the wrong location for the printing company. He stated that when the developer first proposed the building, it would be a medical building, which fell through. He added that it is unfortunate the developer cannot lease the building, but that it is not the City's problem. He stated he does not support a change in the PUD or the accessory building. .J Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 Mayor Marty pointed out that there were no interested parties in the site for either the restaurant or office uses. He stated the space is being wasted and the modification does not seem to be an overly significant change to the PUD of the area. He stated with a viable business in the area, across from the Senior Center, there will be no major impact from the change in the use of the building. He stated that if the building was going to attract renters, it would have by this time, and he believes the printing company is the best option. Councilmember Thomas stated one of the benefits of the PUD is to allow the Council the flexibility to adapt the area to what types of businesses it will attract. Councilmember Flaherty asked how many people the company employees and the owner replied they employ 21. Mayor Marty stated he is encouraged that Let's Get Graphic will be using the entire building. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. G. Resolution 6858, Accepting the Salary Compensation Study. Administrator Ulrich stated this completes the portion of the contract for the classification and compensation study report. He stated the City HR Committee has worked with Laumeyer and • Associates and the firm has several recommendations. He stated all job descriptions have been revised, which the Council approved. He added that the Council selected several comparison cities. He stated that with the study and results, and with the presentation of the report, he recommends the Council send the report back to the HR Committee to discuss the report and make recommendations. Jim Laumeyer, from Laumeyer and Associates, thanked the Council for the opportunity to conduct the study. He stated after the presentation, his firm will go back to the HR Committee to discuss the report. He stated that there were a small number of recommendations they will made. He stated that he appreciates the level of support and involvement of the Personnel Committee and Staff. Mr. Laumeyer commented that Mounds View employees are extremely dedicated and hard working. He explained the four areas with which the report deals: 1. FLSA: He stated this item, according to federal law, addresses whether employees are classified as exempt or non-exempt. He stated there was only one employee with a questionable classification. 2. Point system: He stated that one employee had considerable additional duties and that half of the employees had minor changes. 3. Classifications: He stated that the report recommends nearly 60% of changes of classifications. He said not to worry because the vast majority of the changes are to bring Mounds View classification language up-to-date. He stated that one position • could be reclassified. 4. External Market: He stated the employment positions from ten cities were compared. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 18 The vast majority of the positions, 90%, are at or slightly above market rate. He stated that Mounds View is very positive as far as the market is concerned and his recommendations will have very few monetary effects. Mr. Laumeyer stated the firm is asking for acceptance of the report. He stated after approval, the firm would return to the Personnel Committee with specific recommendations and will then suggest some pay equity. Mayor Marty asked about the sources of external data and why Forest Lake was removed. Mr. Lauymeyer stated that Forest Lake was included in error and the version handed out at the meeting without Forest Lake is correct. Councilmember Thomas asked about the assumption of whether or not the pay system is appropriate. She stated she does not see it addressed in any of the material. Councilmember Flaherty stated that pay was discussed and it was not included in the report. Councilmember Thomas stated she would like the information. Mr. Laumeyer noted that it was decided to defer such information to the Personnel Committee. Councilmember Stigney asked about the title changes and the criteria on which they are based. Mr. Laumeyer stated that one was because one employee needs a re-classification due to duties. . He stated that in the workforce, classifications are constantly updated. Councilmember Stigney asked "who" is using such terms and where the new words come from. Mr. Laumeyer said the words come from research and surveys done with other cities. He suggested the titles changes would be more comparable to other positions with the same duties. Councilmember Stigney asked about the Community Development Director and stated he did not see any changes. Mr. Laumeyer replied that it was a typo. Councilmember Stigney asked for documentation supporting the recommendations. Mr. Laumeyer stated they would be available at the Personnel Committee meeting. Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to make a motion indicating receipt, not acceptance, of the report with referral to the HR Committee. Mayor Marry stated it would come back to the Council for approval. MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6858, Indicating Receipt of the Salary Compensation Study and Referring it to the Human Resource Committee. Mayor Marty asked about Desaree Crane, and the language regarding the "Assistant To" title. He stated he would like to keep the classification of "Assistant To the City Clerk/City • Administrator" title and that some of the duties should be taken on by Administrator Ulrich rather than by the "Assistant To." Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 19 • Mr. Laumeyer stated that the current duties of the position were more "Assistant" rather than "Assistant To" duties. He stated he is looking forward to discussion surrounding the issue with the HR Committee. Councilmember Thomas stated she does not agree with changing the title "demoting" the duty level of a person who is performing the work at such an excellent level is the wrong move. Administrator Ulrich stated he would like to survey other cities about the duties their "Assistant Tos" and "Assistants" are performing. Mayor Marty stated he brought it up because he believes it is possible that Assistant To the City Administrator Crane's plate is too full. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. H. Resolution 6870 Approving Contract with Gov.Office to Provide Web Hosting Services Communications Coordinator Blackford stated that one of the goals of the Council is to improve communications between the City and residents. Coordinator Blackford outlined five reasons why the City should go with GovOffice: 1. Online completion of forms and applications 2. Online citizen polling: 3. Bulk e-mail feature which will allow citizens to choose which issues that interest them. 4. Search reports, which will allow reports to be run about what citizens are searching for on the website 5. Automatic calendar: Coordinator Blackford gave an example about a job application that would have to be removed when the closing date passed and explained that with the GovOffice software, the posting would automatically be removed from the website. Coordinator Blackford stated in March, 2005, Decision Resources conducted a poll that indicated that 70% of Mounds View residents have access to the internet and over one-third of those people have visited the City's website. She stated that one-third of those people rate the website as fair or poor. Coordinator Blackford explained that the interactive form will increase usability of the website and that the instant results provided by the online poll will be valuable. Coordinator Blackford stated that she received two bids, GovOffice and Civic Plus. She stated her recommendation is GovOffice because it includes many features as standard that are not included with Civic Plus. She also listed several people who have recommended GovOffice. Coordinator Blackford provided information about the funds Mounds View gives to Roseville for IT support. She stated it is a bulk fund that Mounds View pays each year and will have to be paid . whether or not the City purchases GovOffice. She stated there will be no additional charge for web hosting with GovOffice. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 20 Coordinator Blackford explained that for the remainder of 2006, GovOffice will cost $2,780, and each additional year will cost $1,170. She stated she is requesting $400 extra, included in the $2,780 request, for a custom webpage. She stated that she is also requesting an additional $300 for set-up and $32.50 each month to cover the cost of the forms. Coordinator Blackford added that Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. Councilmember Stigney asked who directed Coordinator Blackford to get the bids. Administrator Ulrich stated he directed her to do so. Councilmember Stigney stated that Roseville currently provides support and questioned the necessity of a change without any discussion when it will cost more to have a new website and the City will continue to have to pay for Roseville's services. Councilmember Stigney asked about the administrative costs surrounding the maintenance of the website. Coordinator Blackford stated that part of the yearly cost is web hosting, security, etc. Finance Director Beer stated that Roseville is recommending that all cities switch to GovOffice, particularly because of the security software included in the package. Finance Director Beer stated that there will be more upfront costs, but the security systems in GovOffice office will help screen those out. He stated that at some point, Roseville will ask other cities to switch to GovOffice. Councilmember Stigney stated that he would like Roseville to give the City a discount if they do discontinue web hosting. He added that he would like a department to come forward with a proposal to save, rather than spend the City's money. Councilmember Flaherty thanked Coordinator Blackford for being proactive. He stated that she took one of the bigger goals of the Council, communication, and came up with an excellent proposal. He suggested that he does not believe the Council has to make an immediate decision, and that it should come up during budget sessions. Councilmember Thomas stated that discussions and decision surrounding the issue have been put off because the City has waited to hire a Communications Director. She stated this is exactly one of the items on the list and one of the reasons for Coordinator Blackford's hire. She stated that the sooner the sub-par website can be improved, the better. Councilmember Flaherty stated he has a hard time approving non-budget items. Councilmember Thomas replied that non-budget items are approved for good reasons and it would have been included in the budget had the City had a person to recommend it. Councilmember Stigney stated that the deficiencies of the website were not brought up and Coordinator Blackford was hired to relieve Director Ericson of the website maintenance duties. He stated he believes she should work within the system to change the current website. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 21 Councilmember Thomas replied that the City has the handout with Roseville's reply and it is a separate issues. She stated that Roseville offers aweb-hosting service and that Mounds View still has the jurisdiction to make decisions regarding the layout and information on the website. Councilmember Gunn read from the letter from Roseville. Administrator Ulrich stated that as long as Mounds View is using Roseville as the Internet provider, the City is facing a large increase for IT services because of additional items Roseville has taken on. He stated GovOffice allows Coordinator Blackford to be more efficient in the maintenance of the website. He stated there will be savings with the IT contract and in the administration of the website. He stated it is consistent with the Council's goal of improving communication. Mayor Marty asked if switching to GovOffice could eliminate some of the cost increases of Roseville. Administrator Ulrich stated that if all cities on Roseville's server move over to GovOffice, it will eventually reduce the cost. Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to hold off until there are proven savings. Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated he has a lot of background in the area. He explained there is standardization with the interactive pdf forms and open-document text is standard for governments, but questioned its necessity. Mr. Amundsen stated his other comment is about the joint powers agreements. He stated that regardless of the intent of the agreement, the other entity still has the obligation to adhere to the agreement. He stated that Roseville should have had an outsourcing merging agreement. He stated that fewer services should result in a lower price regardless of what is recommended. Councilmember Thomas stated that she anticipates a joint powers agreement revision. She said it is Mounds View's responsibility to provide the best service to residents and she does not believe Roseville's server allows that. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN to waive reading and adopt Resolution 6870 Approving Contract with Gov.Office to Provide Web Hosting Services. Councilmember Stigney commented that staff time may cost extra to use pdf forms, and if that is not the way most offices are going, the City should determine how much administrating the forms would cost. Councilmember Thomas stated the City is not bowing out of agreements with the City of Roseville and if action is taken, Mounds View will have Leverage to negotiate with Roseville. Councilmember Stigney disagreed. Mayor Marty stated he does see pros and cons, and commended Administrator Ulrich and Coordinator Blackford for their research regarding the issue. He stated that this is exactly what the City was looking for to improve citizen information and communication. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 22 • Mayor Marty stated he finds the online opinion polling very beneficial. He stated that online completion of forms and applications is excellent, as well as easier navigation. He stated the bulk e-mail feature is excellent and many departments are doing such things on their own. He agreed that the automatic calendaring is an excellent idea. Mayor Marty stated, however, that the City is in the preliminary budget process and he would like to see this incorporated into the process and continue with Roseville for the present time. He stated he would like to renegotiate the joint powers contract. He added that Roseville would like to get out of the agreement and using GovOffice could be an excellent bargaining tool. Mayor Marty stated that he would like to delay the decision two to three months. He stated he would have liked to have known about the recommendation before a resolution was presented, and suggested it could have been brought up as a work session item. Mayor Marty stated he agrees with Councilmember Stigney that GovOffice could be a bargaining tool to renegotiate the contract with Roseville. He stated that the City could look into it closer rather than "jumping the gun" and approving it right away. He stated for budgetary reasons, the resolution is a bit premature. Councilmember Thomas added that whatever process is used, dealings with Roseville can be • accomplished even with GovOffice implemented. Councilmember Thomas stated the delay is unacceptable and it will take time to get it up and running. She stated that putting GovOffice in place now will allow the City the time to know what will be needed as far as budgetary concerns. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he agrees with Councilmember Stigney, Mayor Marty, and Mr. Amundsen. He stated he believes that the Council should not act upon the issue. Mayor Many stated he is not against the resolution, but thinks it is a bit premature to approve it at the present time. Ayes - 2 Nays - 3 (Marty, Stigney, Flaherty) Motion failed. Mayor Marty asked that this item be brought back for further discussion at a work session. CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:00 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: GIJNN/MARTY to continue the City Council meeting until 10:45 p.m. Ayes - 5 Nays -0 Motion carried. I. Resolution 6884 Adopting the Recommendations of the Charter Commission for a Charter Language Amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View • Charter and Authorizing a Ballot Referendum at the Nezt General Election Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 23 Administrator Ulrich stated that the Charter Commission is recommending that this item be brought up as a ballot referendum. He stated this amendment deals with taxation limits on the annual tax levy and certain fee increases. He stated the amendment also provides a process for voter referendum approval if the City needs to go beyond the set limits. Administrator Ulrich stated it clarifies, updates, and corrects language found in the section. He stated City Attorney Riggs has requested time to review for state statutes and the recommendation of Staff is to postpone action until July 25th to allow for further review. Councilmember Stigney asked about the current resolution's third "whereas" and said he does not support Section 703. He stated he does not support the resolution and the Council should discuss and vote on it. Mayor Marty asked that Subdivision 2, Item C, about the four members of the Council, be changed to indicate a majority is needed. He stated that the Council does the budget every year, and asked what happens in anon-election year. Mayor Marty asked if there was any recourse without any special election. Mr. Amundsen, who is a member of the Charter Commission, stated that is correct. Mayor Marty asked that the language of "next regular municipal election" be changed. Mr. Amundsen stated that there is language addressing elections in the Charter. • Mayor Marty suggested that language should be added about a special election in off years. Councilmember Thomas asked about timing and where the Charter will be if it is not acted upon until July 24th. Mr. Amundsen stated that the Council is not approving the language, but approving the forwarding of the Charter to the County once language is approved. He stated that Council approval on July 24th to move the Charter along would work. He stated he spoke with Administrator Ulrich about the issues the attorneys have and learned they want to check a few points of the statute related to procedures that outlined acceptance. He stated the discussion is if it will go on the ballot. Councilmember Thomas stated her concern is regarding the timing that could be handled by the Charter Commission, but the difficulty the Council has is that if the language is not approved on July 24th, there will not be another Charter Commission meeting. She stated there is a time- crunch and the Council will have to meet between now and the next City Council meeting. Mr. Amundsen stated that the City's task is to move language to the County, not to approve specific language. Mayor Marty asked if City Attorney Riggs could make a recommendation based on a cursory evaluation of the Charter Commission recommendations on July 11. Administrator Ulrich stated City Attorney Riggs has had the Charter for a while and might have something available for the July 11th meeting. He mentioned September 15th as the last date to submit ballot questions and suggested the Council move back from that date. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 24 n Councilmember Thomas stated that they can call a special session and that it needs to be moved upon. Councilmember Stigney stated he does not agree with Mayor Marty's suggestion to change it to a majority. He also stated that he believes Subdivision 1 is too loose. Mr. Amundsen explained that Councilmember Stigney is referring to the limits on tax levy increase, which will be limited to the formula of lesser of a maximum 6% or the Consumer Price Index + 3%. Councilmember Stigney stated he believes the numbers should be smaller. Mayor Marty questioned what could go wrong, and that he did read provisions that the Charter could go to a ballot referendum issue. Mr. Amundsen recommended the public come in and request a book from the Council or Charter Commission if they are interested in the Charter. He suggested citizens attend the Charter Commission meetings. Mayor Marty added that the Charter is adding language that tax levies cannot be increased more than the previous years' amount by the lesser of maximum of 6% or Consumer Price Index + 3%. Councilmember Flaherty stated that the Charter has been gone through several times. He stated that the first step is approving the resolution for an amendment. Councilmember Thomas stated that the discussion must include any amendment changes and language does have to be approved at some point. She stated this cannot be a final action without approval of the language. She pointed out that any language will have to be approved by the Charter Commission. Mr. Amundsen stated that the Council cannot make recommendations to change language, the Charter Commission does not have to accept language changes, but the Council has to approve moving the language to the ballot. MOTION/: FLAHERTY. To put this on the ballot, but not specify language. Mayor Marty stated that the Council will re-introduce the resolution at the next meeting. Mayor Marry stated that he withdraws his suggestion of the majority of members voting instead of 4-1. He said he would like it to remain 4-1. Councilmember Gunn asked what happens if Councilmembers are missing. Mayor Many and Councilmember Thomas replied that there is precedent set for when Councilmembers are gone. Councilmember Flaherty WITHDREW HIS MOTION and suggested it be brought back on July . 24. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 25 Councilmember Stigney asked that Mr. Amundsen relay his concerns about the "loose language" to the Commission. J. Resolution 6883 Setting an Interest Rate and Administrative Fee for Special Assessments Certified during 2006 Finance Director Beer stated in the next few months they will be assessing for delinquent utility and diseased tree removal. He stated that these must be designated. Finance Director Beer explained that currently, the City is getting 5.5% interest and a fee of $25. He stated Staff recommends raising the interest rates to 6% and raising the administrative fee to $30. MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6883 Setting an Interest Rate and Administrative Fee for Special Assessments Certified during 2006. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. K. Resolution 6882 Consideration of Recommended Personnel Action with respect to Thomas Baumgart Police Chief Sommer stated that the resolution is for the termination of the employment of Thomas Baumgart who has been a police officer of 12 years. He stated due to an on-duty injury, he is unable to perform his duties. Police Chief Sommer stated the employee has been informed and is aware of the action and this allows the Department to fill the position. MOTION/SECOND: GUNK/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6882 Consideration of Recommended Personnel Action with respect to Thomas Baumgart. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. L. Approving Change Order No. 1 for the Random Park Building Replacement Project Administrator Ulrich stated that the final change order was brought to the Council previously when it was discovered that a sprinkler system would have to be added to the building. He stated Staff discussed requirements and that there were more quotes and designs discussed. The current quote now saves the City a significant amount of money. Administrator Ulrich stated that the quote will include a 1" service pipe to the building and a valve that will allow for a smaller pipe. He stated the main blank in the contract was the cost of the sprinkler, which has now been added with this change order. He stated the current contractor will continue to work and the sprinkler company will be subcontracted through Jay Brothers. He stated the 4" service would not be required. • Administrator Ulrich stated that Staff recommends going ahead with the project to allow the project to continue. He stated that funding is consistent with the original funding proposal and Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 26 will come from park dedication and TIF funds. Councilmember Flaherty stated he is very impressed with the savings proposed by Administrator Ulrich. Mayor Marty stated he would like to thank the Fire Chief and Fire Inspector for being open to allow the City to accommodate the revised system and still be up to code. He stated the savings are significant. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To approve Change Order No. 1 for the Random Park Building Replacement Project. Councilmember Stigney commended the savings. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Thomas asked to remove Item F. Councilmember Gunn requested Item B be pulled. Mayor Marty asked to remove item E for further discussion. Director Ericson stated that Item I is incorrect, that it is Lot 5, Hidden Hollow. A. Licenses for Approval B. , Sebe~e~eet C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:05 pm for the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 776 adopting the Five Year Financial Plan. D. Resolution 6872 Appointing Gerald Arel to the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission E. F. , cu G. Resolution 6880 Approving a Contract for Weather Services for 2006-09 Winter Seasons. H. Resolution 6877 Authorizing Wetland Map Creation and GIS Overlay Preparation I. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:10 pm to Consider a Partial Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Associated with Lot 5, Hidden Hollow J. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:15 pm to Consider the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 774, an ordinance Amending Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 27 . Dog Kennels K. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:20 pm to Consider the Appeal of a Variance Denial fora 45 Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 L. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:25 p.m. to Consider a Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Resolution 6869, Authorization to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Safe and Sober project Councilmember Gunn stated she would like to thank the Police Department for the Safe and Sober Campaign. Mayor Marty explained how the grant worked. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6869, Authorization to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Safe and Sober project. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. E. Resolution 6873 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project Mayor Marty pointed out that the low bid was to and that the engineers' estimates were $588,000. Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that five came in lower, two came in higher. He stated there was a very good price for concrete and the contractor specialized in concrete sidewalks. He stated that they checked references for the company and received excellent references. Mayor Marty stated that the project is scheduled to begin on July 24 and will be completed in October. MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6873 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 28 F. Resolution 6874 Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to Assist the City with a Traffic Study of the Northwest Area of the City Councilmember Thomas stated she pulled the item for notice and that it is an issue that should be discussed. Mayor Marty stated one of the reasons he wanted to pull the issue is because it is an estimated cost of $43,000 and that he thinks the cost is high. He stated the traffic study does not require an RFP, but he would like to put out an RFP. He stated he would like a study that comes in at $20,000 or less and more money could be used for street repair. Consulting Engineer Rhein responded that it was an expensive traffic study and the firm listened to the State and concerns of citizens to review the goals of what the study will accomplish. Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that Staff gained an understanding of what it will take to determine what the City and citizens want. He stated that a lot of the cost is data collection that involves complex calculations and counts at an integrated level. He stated the City does not have the equipment to do the counts and they would have to be subcontracted. Consulting Engineer Rhein stated the counts themselves would be about $12,000. He stated the City's scope of services to do other data collection is about $31,000. He stated Public Works Director Lee indicated that the scope of the study would continue to grow and the department would be ovemzn with hourly work. Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that Staff put together a detailed list of tasks and identified ten staff members who would be working the report. He stated that he wanted to ensure the implications on state aid are considered. They put together a detailed task list with dollar amounts and put together the study that would meet the needs. He stated this is a cap to what the study will cost and that no more could be spent without Council approval. Consulting Engineer Rhein explained how costs could be trimmed back throughout the study. He stated that in Section 4.SB, Council could reduce the scope of the study. Consulting Engineer Rhein stated the Council is welcome to bid for an RFP but he believes 15% lower would be the "bare bones" that could answer the questions requested by the Council. He stated that Director Lee would like to combine this study with the feasibility study. He stated the scheduling on page 5 indicates an immediate start date with a draft study done in eight weeks, which is an aggressive schedule. He noted that the report for the street and utility project could be done by November 1St Consulting Engineer Rhein stated if there is an RFP, it will throw off the schedule drastically. He stated that he did not include extra costs. He stated they included the number that gives the City the level of detail needed to answer the questions. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 29 Consulting Engineer Rhein stated he understands the City's concern for the RFP but is ready to start the study immediately. Mayor Marty stated he appreciated the report but questions if what was detailed in the report is necessary. He asked that it be returned to Staff to look into 4B, reductions in scope, and if there is any way it could be reduced to keep lower costs. He stated the traffic study is over $43,000, which could be valuable in the long run, but he would rather put the money into the actual improvement. Mayor Marty stated he would like to send it back to Staff for discussion at a future meeting. Councilmember Stigney stated he believes it is prohibitively expensive. He questioned why is the study going up to County Road J when it is not part of the plan, and suggested it be held off until MedTronic is finished. He stated that Mounds View owned traffic counters. Mayor Marty stated they have not worked. Councilmember Stigney stated the City could buy new ones and that the expenditure for the study should be reexamined. Councilmember Gunn stated that the majority of the surveys indicated that this is the information they wanted. She asked why the City is studying County Road J and Airport Road under number 3. Consulting Engineer Rhein said the study area is larger than what is being considered for the improvement project. He stated the proposal is to do 30 counts in the City streets and intersection turning movement counts at northern and southern limits of the study area to determine traffic coming into and out of the area. He stated they are specialized counts. Consulting Engineer Rhein addressed Councilmember Gunn's question about number 3, and replied that the streets are included to determine what traffic is "cut-through" traffic versus traffic that stays within the area. Councilmember Gunn said that is the information citizens have requested. Mayor Marty stated that there should be afollow-up in a few years to see if the road improvement worked. Councilmember Flaherty said that it is what citizens want, but they want it when MedTronic is up and running. He stated the study is way more comprehensive than he imagined. Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that there are tools to project how many trips will be generated by MedTronic when the study is completed. He explained that citizens want to stop high speeds and cut-through traffic before MedTronic is opened. He stated that analysis will help the City anticipate problems and solve them before they are worse. Councilmember Flaherty stated that cut-through traffic will not be stopped and speed is a law enforcement issue. He stated he is not convinced about the benefits of the study. Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that it will help the City determine what improvements can be made to Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 30 discourage traffic from local streets and intuitively find arteries such as Long Lake Road. Consulting Engineer Rhein stated the goal is to determine four to six alternative improvements to the street project. He stated that estimates could be included in the feasibility study. Councilmember Thomas suggested the issue be moved to the next Council meeting. Mayor Marty suggested Staff reexamine the issue and discuss it at the next meeting. Councilmember Stigney asked if the City will look into buying or renting traffic counters. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY To postpone consideration of Resolution 6874 Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to Assist the City with a Traffic Study of the Northwest Area of the City until the July 24, 2006 City Council meeting. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS Councilmember Flaherty asked about page 4, the Century Fence Company, and stated it seems like a large amount. Finance Director Beer stated it is for repair work at one of the schools. Councilmember Flaherty asked about the meter refund program. Finance Director Beer explained that it is for people who move. Councihnember Flaherty asked about a Crown Victorias on page 5 from Elk River Ford, and on page 10, from Superior Ford. He asked if one was a replacement and one was a new. Police Chief Sommer stated that was correct. MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 12, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To Approve the June 12, 2006 City Council meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. June 26, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 31 MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To A rove the June 26 2006 Ci Council Pp ~ tY meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council Mayor Marty stated that residents on Quincy Street commented about the trails and how nice they are. He stated the resident would like to commend Public Works Staff and others who have worked on the trails. Mayor Marty publicly commended the Staff and citizens who have contributed to the clean trails. B. Reports of Staff Administrator Ulrich reported that Representative Bernardy will not be running for the House. Administrator Ulrich announced that Director Lee is the proud father of a new baby girl. 1.) Report on 2345 County Road H2, Property Operated as Vino and Stogies Director Ericson stated that the owners of Vino and Stogies are considering a major investment in the property and are wondering if the City would be interested in purchasing the property. The Council agreed that they are not interested in purchasing the property at this time. Mayor Marty stated that realigning the intersection will require more than that property and the Council will keep the information under consideration. 2.) Update on Premium Stop Property Director Ericson stated that the City closed on the property on June 29th. He stated at the next meeting there will be a resolution authorizing demolition and a market study of the project. Finance Director Beer stated that he met with the City of Blaine regarding payment for fire bonds and the City has been overpaying since 1991, which equals about $61,000. He stated the City is currently working on a repayment plan. 12. Nezt Council Work Session: Monday, July 17, 2006, at 7 p.m. Nezt Council Meeting: Monday, July 24, 2006, at 7 p.m. Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 32 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was recessed to a closed session at 11:18 p.m. Transcribed by: Lauren McKay Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • •