Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2006/07/24PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 24, 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: Mayor Marty, Councilmember Stigney, Councilmember Gunn, Councilmember Flaherty, and Councilmember Thomas NOT PRESENT: None. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, July 24, 2006 City Council Agenda MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To Approve the Monday, July 24, 2006 agenda as presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC INPUT Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated his question regards the agenda and the order of Items D and E. He stated that Item D deals with a variance denial and Item E deals with the IUP and asked why they were in that order. Community Development Director Ericson suggested Items D and E be switched. Councilmember Thomas pointed out that one of the items was a public hearing, and one was not. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated his concerns regarding the proposed fitness center. He said he does not understand why the City is willing to spend $500,000 on a fitness center when there are several private fitness centers in the City. He stated the proposed fitness center would not mean the building is being given back to the residents. He stated the Council should consider it closely before approval. He stated he has not spoken to one other resident who is in favor of the fitness center and believes that it will be a failing business. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mr. Jahnke brought up his belief that the City is getting into the real estate business. He stated the house that was bought on the back of Simon's has been losing taxes for 10 years. He stated he would like to figure out how much the City has lost in taxes for the years the property has been sitting there. Mayor Many replied that the City has owned the Groveland Road property for six years. He stated the Community Center would cost closer to $750,000 since the cost estimate is nearly $660,000 without architectural drawings. Councilmember Flaherty asked for an update regarding the house behind Simons. Director Ericson stated the EDA authorized demolition last year so there is no house currently on the property and it is now green space. He stated at this point the property is in a holding pattern and the Planning Commission has designated it for redevelopment. William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, voiced his opposition to the fitness center. He stated he does not believe residents will pay for the fitness center. He stated the City should not be making a profit on the Community Center. He stated that over $6.2 million is tied up in the building. He suggested the City sell the building and property. Bob Glazer, 2625 Hillview Road, asked about the water quality report that came out a few weeks ago regarding contaminants. He asked about iron and manganese in the water supply, which are major sources of contamination for households, were not included in the report and if they will be reported upon. Public Works Director Lee stated it is not in the report because it is not a contaminant but the information is available because the City does track it. Director Lee stated the health department has not required it be reported on so that is why it was not in the report. Mr. Glazer asked why it wasn't reported on, Director Lee explained it was not because it was not required by the Department of Health. Director Lee explained the Department of Health does not consider it a contaminant. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Resolution 6868 Accepting the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2005. Finance Director Beer explained that Aaron Nelson, from the City's auditors, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co will explain the report. Mr. Nelson stated there are three reports regarding financial audit. He noted there was one report from Staff and two from his firm. Mr. Nelson stated on page one, there is an audit summary, which includes an "unqualified • opinion" on financial statements. He stated under government auditing standards, there were no instances of non-compliance, but there was one issue involving internal controls. He stated Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 regarding the final opinion, they have reported two findings: timely payment of invoices and one item regarding administrative penalties. He stated it is a follow-up consistent with last year's findings. Mr. Nelson pointed out on page one, which includes the auditors' comments, and that they found the financial records to be in excellent condition. Mr. Nelson stated the City submitted the report for Certificate of Excellence. Mr. Nelson stated that there was a special item reported for the sale and closing of the golf course. He stated there were two comments regarding investment broker acknowledgement certificates, which are recommendations for the City for this year. He stated the last item in the summary is a comment on internal control and cash receipts. Mr. Nelson pointed out on pages three and four the graphs refer to the City's market value and tax capacity. He stated pages five and six deal with the Governmental Funds Overview. He stated there was a comparison with statewide averages and the City continues to generate less than average funds per-capita. He stated on page six, there is a table showing expenditures. He stated that the City has below-average expenses when compared to other Cities. Mr. Nelson pointed out on page seven that the general fund financial position since 1996 is shown. He stated the City has been able to provide a stable position for several years. He stated the fund balance falls within the state auditor's recommendation. Mr. Nelson stated page eight explains the general fund revenue and that revenues came in better than anticipated. He stated on the expenditures side, the City spent 1.3% less than was planned in the budget. He stated the City has been spending responsibly. Mr. Nelson noted the enterprise operations and positions of water and sewer funds. He stated it has maintained a stable operating performance and is in a healthy operation performance. He stressed the importance that the operations are maintaining and operating efficiently. He noted the sewer fund has been steady and healthy as well. He stated that Page 12 points out what the City has done since implementing the Gatsby 34 management plan. He stated that enterprise has shown an increase and this year's ending balance is about $8 million higher than last year's ending balance. Mr. Nelson explained that page 13 is a statement of activities entity wide. He stated that the City's governmental activities rely more on taxes more than the business-like activities, which rely on program revenues. He stated GASB 40 was implemented this year and there will be a change in the financial investments. Mr. Nelson stated there have been discussions of GASB 44 and 45 relating to the City's investments. • Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 Councilmember Flaherty asked about the spike in 1999 with the operation expenses related to the water fund on page 10. Mayor Marty stated he does not recall why there was the spike. Councilmember Flaherty pointed out it went from $700K to nearly $1 million. Director Lee stated it was awater-meter change-out program. MOTION/SECOND: GLTNN/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6868 Accepting the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2005. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 pm -Public Hearing to Consider the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 776, an Ordinance adopting the Five Year Financial Plan. Finance Director Beer stated at the last work session the 5-year financial plan was presented for review and discussion. He recommended opening the public hearing. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, commented that it bothered him to hear that there is a shift of the revenue source toward property taxes as reported in the budget report. He stated that even if the shift is the same as what is happening in other Cities, the shift should concern residents. Mayor Many responded that it is due basically to the reduction and elimination of LGA, Local Government Assistance. He stated the City used to receive close to $1 a year in LGA and when that was cut there were the same expenses in the City. He stated in order to keep the City running, they had to raise taxes. He stated the state property taxes were cut, but the City had to raise taxes in order to keep the City running. He noted the shift from the State funding to City funding. Councilmember Thomas stated the point in the report was a shift to property taxes from the City doing business. She stated the City has stopped doing business and that is the reason for the shift. She stated the major reason was the sale of the Golf Course. Mr. Glidden stated the City has very few other sources of income. He asked if there will be increases or decreases to the assumptions about estimated market and assessed property value. Finance Director Beer stated assessed values are not considered, but that there is a 3% levy increase estimate. Mr. Glidden asked about the overall increase in expenditures. Mayor Marty replied that the Council's goal is to have a 0% increase. Finance Director Beer stated that for 2007, he calculated 0%, but for the subsequent years he factored 3%. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Councilmember Flaherty commented that the five-year plan is a good foundation but that it can change year to year. He stated the important thing is that there is a 0% levy increase for 2007. He added that the Council would maintain the 0% as long as possible and commended Finance Director Beer for the plan. Mayor Marty stated the City is creating a vision. He stated that some things in the plan can and will change, but the City needs a plan as a foundation. He stated that it was awell-done report. Councilmember Stigney asked about the ordinance that is before the Council and if 2006 is the first year of adoption, or if it will be the first part of the five-year plan. Finance Director Beer stated the wording is following other ordinances. He stated it is the 2006 version of the plan and it includes additional years. Councilmember Stigney stated the language is ambiguous. He stated he is not in favor of 3% levy increase in subsequent years and he is in favor of using the Medtronic levy decrease until it is gone. He stated that he believed TIF would be the funding source for maintenance of County 10. He noted bonding was indicated as a funding source in the report and questioned why City bonds were included in the plan. Finance Director Beer responded that the report should read TIF and not bonding. Councilmember Stigney stated he couldn't support the plan because he does not support the expenditures of 2008-2011. Mayor Marty responded that it is the Council's responsibility to reassess the priorities and determine what is necessary in the City. He stated the report is a framework based on the City's needs. Councilmember Stigney stated his problem is the list about what should be done. He stated adopting the 5-year plan means that every project listed must be considered. Mayor Marty stated the Council's goal is to maintain a 0% levy increase for the following years, not just 2007, with 0% as long as the Council can maintain the levy reduction fund. He stated it is the Council's responsibility to guard the levy reduction-fund and only use it to keep the annual levy at 0%. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GL1NN. To waive the reading and adopt the first reading of Ordinance 776, an Ordinance adopting the Five Year Financial Plan. Ayes - 4 Nays -1 (Stigney) Motion carried. B. 7:10 pm -Public Hearing, Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 777, an Ordinance Approving a Partial Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Associated with Lot 5, Hidden Hollow, Requested by Dave Regal Builders. Director Ericson stated this is one of the last remaining lots to be developed in the Hidden Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 i Hollow neighborhood. He stated that when Dave Regal Construction purchased the lot, the easement was in excess of what was originally determined to be dedicated. He stated an engineering firm provided an area that would be vacated that is consistent with the high level of the storm water management pond. Director Ericson stated he requested a review from Sunde Engineering and they confirmed the easement is in excess and had no problems with the developer's report. He stated he then sent the report to Bonestroo, the City's engineer, and they also confirmed that vacating the easement would not cause detriment to the storm water management pond. Director Ericson stated he is requesting the public hearing be opened through the next meeting so all affected residents can be present. He stated there are a number of exhibits showing where the lot site is and some submittal information from Regal Construction. Director Ericson stated one of the plans shows the easement area to be vacated and pointed out on the site map where it will be vacated. He stated it would be vacated consistent with the engineers report and is asking that Rice Creek Watershed review the request. He added that approval would be contingent on Rice Creek Watershed review and approval. Director Ericson stated Staff is confident it could be vacated and there is no public purpose in keeping the excess easement property. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Dave Regal, Dave Regal Construction, stated the vacation is being requested because the home is being built for ahandicapped-accessible home. He stated when the lot was purchased, they were not aware of the excess easement. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, asked if it would cost the City any money to vacate the property. Director Ericson stated it will not and the applicant is responsible for all costs. The public hearing was continued until the next meeting. Mayor Marty asked if the entire area shown on the lot is easement. Director Ericson stated that it is. Mayor Marty asked for clarification about the area that will be vacated. Director Ericson stated it is approximately 1500 square feet. Councilmember Flaherty stated the consulting engineer stated that the vacation will not be detrimental to the storm water management pond and asked for clarification about the Rice Creek Watershed approval. Director Ericson clarified the approval and stated that the vacation will not be detrimental to the storm water management pond. Mayor Marry asked if the area has been graded. Director Ericson stated the area graded for ponding was in excess and that the land will be graded back into the property. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 • Councilmember Thomas asked if any back grading would be done because of the construction of the walkout home. Director Ericson stated it would. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To continue the public hearing until August 14, 2006. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To accept the first reading of a Partial Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Associated with Lot 5, Hidden Hollow, as requested by Dave Regal Builders. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. C. 7:15 pm -Public Hearing 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 Dog Kennels Director Ericson stated this was brought to their attention last December and that the zoning code should be amended so residents with three or four dogs do not have to go through the Planning Commission and Council for a conditional use permit. • Director Ericson stated it is not a planning action to have three to four dogs. He stated the Planning Commission recommended removing the C.U.P. requirement and having kennels and multiple dogs covered under regular licensing. He stated that some language would be added regarding persons charged with animal cruelty and a mechanism to revoke the license. Director Ericson stated that requirements to obtain signatures remains the same. He stated this change would not require people to go through a public hearing in order to have kennels. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Glidden asked for a clarification between dog kennels for commercial purposes or dog kennels for pets. He asked if the change would address regular kennels or commercial kennels. Director Ericson responded the ordinance reflects changes to pet owners, not commercial kennel operators. He stated it does not change the requirements for a commercial kennel and only applies to residential properties and personal pets. Mayor Marty read from the ordinance, clarifying that it will not apply to commercial kennels. He stated that this ordinance would apply to residents who want to breed dogs who could not in the past without a Conditional Use Permit. • Mr. Glidden asked the Council to consider what is a reasonable number of pets. Director Ericson stated that in Mounds View, a residential properly owner couldn't have more than four dogs. He Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 • stated puppies could be kept until six months of age. Director Ericson stated there have been problems in the City regarding cats and there is no upper threshold about the number of cats residents can own. Mayor Marty stated he has had calls from property owners who rent property and some tenants have excessive numbers of cats. He stated Mounds View has nothing in the code covering cats and it should be considered at a future work session. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and accept the first reading of Ordinance 774, an ordinance Amending Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to Dog Kennels. Mayor Marty thanked Staff and the Planning Commission for addressing this ordinance. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D. 7:20 pm -Public Hearing to Consider the Appeal of a Variance Denial for a 45 Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 • This item was considered following agenda item E. E. Consideration of Resolution 6875 pertaining to an Interim Use Permit (IUP) Application for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 Director Ericson explained that the Council has reviewed this item twice and it has been before the Planning Commission. He stated the billboard will be at the Mermaid property and is consistent with the ordinance the City adopted for the relocation agreement executed with Clear Channel in 2005 for billboards that were on the golf course. Director Ericson stated all requirements associated with the IUP have been met, with exception of the height. He stated the Planning Commission denied the variance for the 45-foot height and that code provides fora 35-foot billboard. He stated Clear Channel appealed the decision of the Planning Commission for the variance. Director Ericson explained the reasons for hearing the IUP first and variance appeal second. He noted there are several resolutions attached with several options. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission denied the IUP because they felt that the location was not appropriate because of potential obstruction and property degradation issues. He explained that the Council needs to determine whether or not there is a hardship when • considering the variance and the Planning Commission determined there was no hardship justifying the variance. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 Director Ericson explained that the Council needs to consider the criteria guiding an IUP, such as adverse effects, impact on adjoining properties, and issues associated with appearance, such as degradation or impact on the County Road 10 corridor. Director Ericson stated Staff has concluded there is justification for denial. He stated based on Planning Commission's recommendation, there are recommendations denying the IUP and variance. He stated that it is a subjective decision by the Council and there is a resolution that approves both the IUP and variance. He stated there is also a resolution approving the IUP and denying the variance. Director Ericson stated there has been additional public feedback including a resident who commented on the application. He stated there is a letter from Mr. Kopas, adjoining the property owner, who does not oppose the billboard as long as it is at a height of 45 feet. He stated that one member of the Planning Commission determined that if the IUP is approved, the variance should be approved because there is an issue with visibility and obstruction. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Mr. Glidden pointed out that at every meeting he has attended so far, all of the input about the billboard has been negative. He stated he understands that there has been input in writing from • three residents requesting denial. He noted that he expressed his opposition at the last meeting and that citizens are asking that the Council deny the IUP. Mr. Glidden pointed out that the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the IUP and voted 4-1 opposing the variance. He stated the only reason for the 1 approving vote, was because if the permit was approved, the height does matter. He stated that the one other business owner who spoke was Mr. Kopas and he was initially in opposition to the billboard and is now only in favor of it at 45 feet. Dan Hall, 2200 County Road 10, pointed out that there was a town hall meeting and not one person who was there brought up the issue of billboards. He stated it is clear that the citizens do not have a problem with the billboard since there are not many residents speaking up in opposition. Mr. Hall addressed the impact on the County Road 10 corridor. He stated the Corridor has many problems and that the half-full strip malls are much more negative than a billboard. He stated there is high traffic at the proposed site and that is where a billboard belongs. He stated that he believes that it is a problem when government interferes with private enterprise. Mr. Hall pointed out the drug stores and their negative impact. He stated the empty buildings are a larger problem. He noted that Councilmember Stigney stated there would be depreciation for Mr. Kopas' building but such an opinion is in opposition to Councilmember Stigney's statement that he would like to stay out of business. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 Mr. Hall stated that the billboard needs to be at a height of 45 feet so Mr. Kopas does not have obstruction and Clear Channel can sell the billboard. He stated he would like the billboard to be passed tonight at the 45-foot height. Councilmember Stigney responded to Mr. Hall's comment and that he does not believe the billboard is positive. He stated the deprecation factor is not for Coups' business, but it is a depreciation factor for the entire City. Isabelle Hanson, 2320 Lambert Ave., stated her opposition tot he billboard. She stated she believes the billboard will degrade County Road 10. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated his concerns are the reasons the Planning Commission denied the IUP and variance. He stated the Council must consider the reasons closely. He asked if any business can put up a billboard and if the cost of the billboards will be Medtronic's. Gary Stevenson, 2870 Arden Avenue, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, explained the vote to deny the variance. He stated the vote to deny was based primarily on the fact that the Flanning Commission does not want billboards on County Road 10. He stated the vote was not to deny the billboard at the Mermaid, but to deny any locations along County Road 10. Mr. Stevenson stated that if the Council decides to relocate the billboard to the Mermaid site from the Medtronic site, the vote would be different had they just considered the variance. He stated he believes the vote would have been to approve the 45-foot height had the council determined the Mermaid site as the best. Mr. Stevenson stated that the Planning Commission voted against the billboard because in years past, the Planning Commission had limited any billboards on County Road 10 to the one at Wallgreens. He stated that the Planning Commission decided against any billboards for future developments. Mr. Stevenson stated the Council has the right to override the Planning Commission because of the agreement to relocate the billboards from Highway 10. He added that if the billboard must be relocated to County Road 10, the Planning Commission has no opposition to the Mermaid site. Rich Sonterre, 5060 Red Oak Drive, stated that speaking as a resident, he has a concern with the Staff Report, which includes a portion of an e-mail not included in any other Staff Report. He stated that his objection is because there is no name and address included in the e-mail. Mr. Sonterre stated that anyone or any group could inundate the City with anonymous e-mails of one opinion or another and that there are no checks or balances that ensure one person is not expressing their opinion more than once. He stated that he believes all input must include a name or address. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 Mayor Marty stated it is his policy to not respond to those who do not leave names or addresses. Director Ericson stated that after the receipt of e-mail, he responded to the resident indicating a name and address would be required. Director Ericson stated the resident did respond with a name and address, which was not included in the Staff Report. He added that Staff struggles with anonymous information. Mr. Sonterre responded that even though it is on file, it should not be included in the Staff Report. Rich Sonterre, 3525 Spring Street Minneapolis, of Clear Channel Outdoor, stated this is an ongoing process by which two parties entered into an agreement and he hopes this hearing tonight is close to an end. He thanked Chair Stevenson for commenting. He stated that Chair Stevenson's comments are significantly different than the reasons the Planning Commission denied the IUP and variance. He stated he would like to work to find a remedy for the situation and he has other challenges, including a lease agreement with the City for another location. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Councilmember Flaherty commented that the City is engaged with an agreement and contract with Clear Channel to relocate the billboards and the City has asked to renegotiate the contract. He stated the City should feel an obligation about the contract. He stated the revised contract states the City would re-design its codes to relocate the signs. He stated he agrees with the relocation. Councilmember Flaherty noted the second issue is with the height of the billboard. He said he is okay with the IUP, but not okay with the variance. He stated he believes the Council has done their due diligence with Clear Channel regarding plans for the relocation. Mr. Sonterre responded that he would rather have a 20 foot billboard and they rarely build a higher billboard. He stated the request for the variance is to achieve two objectives: to gain height over Mr. Hall's sign so the westbound face is clear, and at the request of Mr. Kopas that the sign not to obstruct his building's signs. Mr. Sonterre explained that building the billboard at 45 feet costs more and depreciates the sign, but noted that at 35 feet, he will not build the sign. He stated that if the variance were not approved, financial compensation from the City would be the better option. He stated that the request for the billboard to be built at 45 feet is not to be a dominant structure. Councilmember Stigney asked the face size of the billboard. Mr. Sonterre responded it would be 14 feet high and 48 feet wide. Councilmember Stigney asked why the billboard would be larger than what is in front of Walgreens. He stated the billboard at Walgreens is because of a perpetual lease. He stated that Clear Channel agreed to put flowers and a base. He stated that is the only reason the Planning Commission approved it. Councilmember Stigney stated that detriment and hardship with Mr. Hall's property is of his own doing. Mr. Hall replied that the only problem is with Mr. Kopas' sign. He stated his problem is not that the billboard will block his property and he does not care the height at which the Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 billboard is being built. Councilmember Stigney asked if Mr. Hall is requesting the variance. Mr. Sonterre noted that the billboard he is proposing is the same size as the one at Walgreens. Mr. Jahnke asked if approving this billboard would open the door to other billboards. Director Ericson stated that the ordinance the City adopted in May provides for very specific relocation places for billboards. He stated there is a cap and replace limitation and that the City cannot exceed the number of billboards currently in the City. Director Ericson explained that approving the IUP does not open the door to any additional billboards and if one is approved, there cannot be any more built on County Road 10 because the ordinance requires significant spacing between billboards. Councilmember Gunn stated she agrees with Councilmember Flaherty that she will approve the site, but not the height variance. She stated she does not want billboards on County Road 10, but this is within an area that was approved. She stated she would not agree with the variance because what she can see from the diagram presented with the Staff Report, the 35-foot billboard will not block Mr. Kopas' business. She stated she does not see the need for the 45-foot variance. Councilmember Thomas stated her difficulty is that the discussion turns to whether or not the Council wants a billboard on County Road 10. She stated that the discussion has been had and this site was determined as one that is acceptable for a billboard. She stated that she appreciated Stevenson's comments. Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council disagreed with the Planning Commission's denial since the Council agreed that the site proposed is acceptable. She stated the Council is here to decide about whether or not to overturn the vote, not what personal beliefs of billboards are. She stated that the Planning Commission went beyond the scope of the question before them. Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with the Planning Commission's decision and he will do everything he can to stop billboards on County Road 10. He stated County Road 10 should be the last option. He said the City should negotiate with Medtronic for billboards on their site. He stated the height is immaterial because he will not vote for either the NP or variance. Mayor Marty agreed with Councilmember Stigney that he does not want a billboard on County Road 10. He stated that the City is trying to make County Road 10 more of a "boulevard" rather than a highway or pass-through area. He stated that hopefully by the fall there would be the first lighted trailway between Silver Lake Road and Long Lake Road. He mentioned where other trailways have been installed. He mentioned money set aside from other businesses for the trailway and other businesses will be asked for their contributions. • Mayor Marty noted the code states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met, and in this case, not all criteria are met. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 Mayor Marty explained that the ordinance was discussed and that the Council decided explicitly to limit height. He stated he does not feel billboards belong on County Road 10 and the Council decided if a billboard would be approved at the site, it would be limited to 35 feet. Mayor Marty expressed his concern about the precedent that would be set if a 45-foot billboard was allowed. He stated he is concerned about allowing a variance from the code without a hardship and the implications on other City ordinances and with other billboards. Councilmember Thomas expressed her favor of Option B, approving the IUP but denying the variance. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6875 pertaining to an Interim Use Permit (IUP) Application for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10. Ayes - 3 Nays - 2 (Stigney, Marty) Motion carried. D 7:20 pm -Public Hearing to Consider the Appeal of a Variance Denial for a 45 Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6893, denying Appeal of a Variance Denial fora 45 Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County Road 10. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. F. 7:25 pm -Public Hearing and Consideration of a consideration of a Preliminary Plat for a Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road; Planning Case MA2006-002 Planning Associate Heller explained that the property is just over 1.5 acres and the property owner has submitted a request to divide it into three lots. She stated that the current home would be demolished. She stated that the current zoning will support the subdivision and the proposed lots will each be one-half acre. Planning Associate Heller stated it is consistent with zoning and the Comprehensive Plan, and the Staff reports the watershed district will be contacted. She stated that easement has been dedicated in the preliminary plat and Long Lake Road is large enough to handle the additional traffic. Planning Associate Heller explained that there will be park dedication requirements and Staff recommends it be based ontwo-thirds the land value. She stated that sewer and water are accessible. Planning Associate Helier indicated that much of the lot is tree-covered. She stated one resident to the rear of the property was concerned about the number of trees being cleared. She noted that Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 the developer indicated he would clear only trees necessary for the homes. Planning Associate Heller stated that because of the City's Surface Water Management Plan, the watershed would be contacted. She stated that the City forester stated there are a few trees that are worth saving and that the applicant has taken that into consideration. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. Councilmember Stigney asked if the setbacks will be adequate with the current home. Planning Associate Heller replied that the current home will be demolished and the new homes will meet the required setbacks. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:53 p.m. Mayor Marry asked Planning Associate Heller about the R-1, Single Family, Detached Garage zoning, and also asked about attached garages. Planning Associate stated that she assumes they will build attached garages. MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and accept Resolution 6888, a Preliminary Plat for a Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. G. Resolution 6884, Considering an Amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter as Proposed by the Mounds View Charter Commission and Directing Staff to Prepare Language to be Placed on the Ballot for a Vote of the Qualified Voters at the Negt General Election Pursuant to the Requirements of Minnesota Statute 4110.12. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated that during the past several years, the Mounds View Charter Commission has been reviewing the lists of past requests for housekeeping and clarification updates to the sections of the Mounds View Charter that have caused confusion or seem to be semantically incorrect. She said that a number of these changes have been processed by ordinance by the City Council. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated that if changes are deemed to be more substantive in nature, the Charter Commission may recommend that these amendments be put on a ballot referendum. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that the Mounds View Charter Commission has requested that the City Council prepare the following charter language amendment for a ballot and have it placed before the voters at the next general election. She stated the amendment is dealing with Section 7.03 of the Charter in regard to the City's system of taxation. She explained the concepts that are proposed were discussed at the joint Council/Charter Commission Work Session held earlier this year and reviewed by the Council on July 10, 2006, Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 and referred to the City Attorney for review and comment. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated that the City Attorney has provided his comments to the Charter Commission and will meet with them to discuss the language amendment to Chapter 7. She explained that attached are the attorney's comments on the proposed change to the Charter. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated the Charter Commission has requested the Council's response within 30 days on any questions or clarification to any item as presented in the modification of language. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated that the City Attorney has indicated that while the Council shall fix the form of the ballot question, the Charter Commission has the authority to have the question on the ballot. Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that the upcoming General Election would obviously be the most cost-effective election to address this ballot question. She explained that a special election, if it were necessary, would cost approximately $10,000. She state to make the general election deadline, the question must be certified to the County by September 15`". She stated that Staff recommends final action on the question be taken by the Council no later than the August 28~' regular meeting. Councilmember Flaherty asked about the changes in language from the City Attorney. He asked if the recommendations City Attorney Riggs made do not change the content or intent of changing the Charter. Riggs stated that is correct. City Attorney Riggs explained that he met with the Charter Commission last Thursday and the Commission made a number of revisions and at the end of the meeting they agreed to the language. Councilmember Gunn stated she did not understand language in Subdivision Two B, which reads "hold a public hearing upon at least 10 days posted and published notice in the City's official publication." Councilmember Thomas stated it is not necessarily the normal grammatical. Councilmember Gunn asked if it means notice must be given 10 days in advance. Mr. Jonathan Thomas, 8040 Groveland Road, Chair of the Charter Commission, pointed out that Mr. Riggs made the changes. Mr. Thomas stated that if the Council wants to direct Staff to make changes, it is within the Council's scope. He stated that the public hearing will be held, will be posted 10-days prior, and will be published in the standard way the Charter has determined. He stated the language is difficult and he believes that the intent has been captured, but it may be able to be said more clearly. Councilmember Gunn stated her problem is with the word "upon." City Attorney Riggs stated that there was no time frame for notice and that was the goal of the added language. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 Councilmember Thomas clarified that the intent is to follow the ordinance procedure, but not requiring other things that are required with ordinances. She stated this is not an ordinance, but they are trying to make it follow the process for ordinances. Councilmember Flaherty stated that he agrees with Councilmember Gunn that the language is difficult to understand. Mr. Thomas stated that in the recommendation of it being a ballot question, it can be included in the request that Staff clarify. Councilmember Gunn asked about the City newsletter and how it will be published 10 days ahead when there are only 6 newsletters published. Councilmember Stigney suggested the language of "city newsletter when feasible, or the City website." Mr. Thomas stated Councilmember Stigney's recommendation is well within the intent of the language. He stated the listing of the additional items is to encourage the use, but the City newsletter is the required use. Mr. Thomas stated it is reasonable to request Staff take a careful consideration of the paragraph when drafting the final draft. Councilmember Stigney asked about the formulas in Subdivision 1, which states the rate shall not exceed the lesser of the following formulas. He asked about the inflationary index and asked if the word "formulas" should be removed. Mr. Thomas stated there are two formulas, the lesser of 5%, or CPI plus 2%. Councilmember Thomas stated that there are two formulas, and any time a percentage is being figured, it is a formula. She stated it is either a percentage of the budget, or the CPI plus a percentage. Councilmember Stigney suggested the language "CPI plus 2% or a cap of 5%" be used. Mr. Thomas stated that if there is a better way for the langue to make sense, the Charter Commission is not opposed to it. He stated the overall attempt is to put together a very carefully planned restriction so the Council cannot implement a greater amount without taking it to the voters. Mayor Marty stated his concern is that the CPI was 10%, would the limit will be crippling to the City in inflationary times. He stated a special election would cost the City a fair amount. He stated if the City needs more than 5%, it would cost a significant amount to approve. Mr. Thomas stated the Charter Commission agrees with the sentiment, but if the City finds itself in the position of needing more money, the Council needs to take it to the voters with a special election. He stated they reviewed with Finance Director Beer the last 10 years and next 5 years, and the 5% would have worked in the past and will work in the future. He stated if times are that tough, he believes the voters must be involved. Mr. Thomas explained that, not counting the cuts in LGA, the numbers would all have worked and they would not have had to go to the voters for any of the budgets. He stated they considered both historical and projected needs, and designed the Charter to meet the City's needs Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 even in times of hardship. He stated he believes they have come up with a workable solution with reasonable limits. Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with Mr. Thomas and believes the restrictions are too loose. He stated it is not the Council's duty to discuss the "meat" of the Charter, but to debate language. He stated there would be more money coming in from Medtronic in the future. He agreed with the ballot option and that the Charter puts a reasonable cap on the City's ability to spend money. Mayor Marty commended the Charter Commission for addressing and incorporating all of the Council's concerns. MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GLTNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6884, Considering an Amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter as Proposed by the Mounds View Charter Commission and Directing Staff to Prepare Language to be Placed on the Ballot for a Vote of the Qualified Voters at the Next General Election Pursuant to the Requirements of Minnesota Statute 4110.12. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. H. Resolution 6889 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Medtronic Utility Extension Project Director Lee stated on July 13, the City received bids for the City Utility extension project. He stated the main concern is about how the sanitary sewer will be brought under Highway 10. Director Lee explained how the bids were made with two different alternatives, the first utilizing an existing casing for the sanitary sewer, and Alternate two, which is for crossing Judicial Ditch Number One to get the sanitary sewer on the east side of the ditch where Medtronic has submitted approved plans to construct their sanitary sewer line Director Lee stated the low bid was submitted by Dave Perkins Contracting, which was $444,509, about $100,000 lower than the Engineer's projection. He stated that bid alternate number one would be an increase and it is the recommendation to go with alternate number two. Director Lee stated it is recommended the City approve the base bid for Dave Perkins without alternates number one or two. Councilmember Flaherty asked for a brief explanation about the issues. Director Lee stated there is a developer's agreement with Medtronic that the City would provide the extension. He stated the cost would be reimbursed by the developer. Councilmember Thomas asked if there would be any disruption to traffic and Director Lee responded it would not cause any disruption. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 18 MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6889 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Medtronic Utility Extension Project. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. I. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 778, an Ordinance Rezoning the Properties Located at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the Back Half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3, Medium Density Residential, in Support of Integra Homes Request. Director Ericson explained that this item has been before the Council and Planning Commission several times. He reminded the City of the discussion and of the planned development for the area. He stated the plan is within the Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed-use, but that the Planning Commission had issues with what should be the use for this area. Director Ericson stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the preliminary plat. He noted that the developer considered the Planning Commission and residents' comments and brought forward a new plan that took into consideration the comments and concerns. Director Ericson stated that this is a simple re-zoning, not a preliminary plat. He stated the Planning Commission still has questions about whether this is the correct development for the • area and concerns with the density. Director Ericson explained that the proposal is for 19 owner-occupied townhome units. He stated the developer submitted an elevation with proposed units. He stated they would be designed with decks on the back and concrete drives. He stated it is a nice development if townhomes are determined to be the best use. Director Ericson noted some of the feedback involved privacy issues, highest and best use for the area, and that many adjacent residents felt that the properly should be office or retail. Director Ericson stated the mixed-use comprehensive plan provides for some flexibility, but that it is up to the City to determine what is the best use for the property. He stated there was not a clear distinction about what the best land use should be for the property. Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission recommended that the City deny the re-zoning because the townhomes did not adhere with what they believe should be in this area. He stated that during the work session, two of three Councilmembers indicated that they like the townhomes. He stated there are two options for action: approve or deny the re-zoning. Director Ericson stated that the ordinance could be given a first reading and Staff could hold off the second reading so the Council could go through the preliminary planning, and then approve or deny the development. Director Ericson stated Staff recommends giving first reading, but wait for the second reading to allow Integra to submit a major subdivision and plan. He noted that this is not a published public Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 19 • hearing, but there are residents who have comments and feedback. Director Ericson stated that residents are concerned about traffic, fire safety, and whether the homes are the best use of the property given the potential for a Vikings stadium. He mentioned another consideration is if the City wants to break up the seven acre plot. He said the Planning Commission suggested the City undertake a marketing analysis and feasibility study to determine highest and best use for the property. He stated the Planning Commission is asking for an authorization for a market study for the area. Duane Waldoch, 2935 County Road 10, stated he is surprised the issue came up at the Council and that he was not notified. He stated he is not against townhomes, but is against how the townhomes will be put in the property. He stated that the PUD was set up to put something together at that point. Mr. Waldoch stated townhomes would demolish the process of the PUD that was going through. He stated that Mounds View has a beautiful corridor set up for future development, and that a residential development is not proper for County Road 10. He stated the re-zoning will not benefit the City of Mounds View. He stated there should be more studies done before buildings are built. He stated that he believes County Road 10 will be desirable in the near future and townhomes are not the best use. • Mark Schnor, 2949 Highway 10, stated he agrees with Mr. Waldoch. He stated that at one time, it was discussed that County Road 10 access for he and Waldoch would be cut. He stated 19 more families on County Road 10 is a safety factor. Brian Bourassa, MFRA Engineering representing Integra Homes, stated that after the initial Planning Commission denial he spoke with Staff and residents, and the homes were oriented differently and significant landscaping was added. Mr. Bourassa stated they reduced the density of the townhomes and that 19 units does not reach the maximum of medium (R-3) density. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan states that this area is defined as mixed-use. He stated that his plan is designed to link the area with the other parcels. He stated there was some discussions about whether the linkages would increase traffic on Groveland and that his plan is to keep some access point. Mr. Bourassa stated Integra Homes has researched the viability for a commercial or office real estate and neither use was determined to be viable. He stated that Integra believes the townhomes will provide an excellent development along County Road 10. He stated he believes townhomes are the highest and best use for the parcel Mr. Jahnke agreed with Mr. Waldoch that County Road 10 should not have residential units right on the highway. • Councilmember Stigney stated that Mr. Bourassa pointed out the problems with making the parcel commercial, and that there are limited access points. He stated a business would increase Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 20 • traffic more than the townhomes would. He stated that Integra owns the property and they do not have the option of the PUD. Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with the re-zoning. MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GUNN. To waive the reading and accept first reading and Introduction of Ordinance 778, an Ordinance Rezoning the Properties Located at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the Back Half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3, Medium Density Residential, in Support of Integra Homes Request. Councilmember Flaherty stated that the area is already zoned for a business, and asked "if not townhomes, then what." He brought up the example of a gas station or liquor store and asked what the residents would prefer. He stated that he does not believe a commercial business will increase the property value of the homes in the area as much as townhomes. He stated he would like to see if there is a workable solution with more feedback. He stated he is stuck because he does not know what else residents would like. Councilmember Gunn stated it comes down to the people who own the property and that they can develop it they way they see fit. She stated the property owners could sell the land to a less desirable entity. Mr. Waldoch restated his concern. . Director Ericson stated the properties have a designated zoning, and tomorrow the land could be developed as long as the zoning was consistent. He stated that any business could go in that area that is consistent with the zoning of the property. He stated that the property can be developed, as it sits presently, with its business zoning. Councilmember Thomas stated she understands the request. She stated it is almost an arbitrary decision, but at some point, the Council will make the call about the best use of the property. She stated that the Council needs to make the decision if townhomes are the best use of the property. She stated at some point, the discussions will continue until the Council makes a decision. She stated that the Council either needs to make a decision, or request a market study to determine the best use. Mayor Marty stated his concern is that residents have not been notified. Director Ericson explained that he has made every effort to notify residents of what is going on. Mayor Marty stated that the property owners he spoke to expressed a desire to keep the 7 acres as one unit in the PUD. He stated that the property owners outside of the proposed project would be willing to sell. Mayor Marty voiced his concern that taking the property out of the middle makes it unfeasible to develop the 7 acres as one unit. Mayor Marty stated he would not like to see the property broken up in the middle. Mayor Marty stated that Economic Development Coordinator Backman gave the City a "heads up" about anassisted-living home. • Mayor Marty stated the proposed townhomes would increase the market value of the properly to Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 21 • $4.7 million and an assisted living facility, which Mounds View does not have, would have a market value of $6-7 million for 40 units in one building. He suggested the Council consider such a development before making a decision. Mayor Marty stated he would like to determine what the City wants and needs in the area with a market feasibility study as recommended by the Planning Commission. He suggested the Council consider the assisted living facility before making a decision. He stated he is not convinced that the townhome development is the best use for the property. Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council has discussed Staff's recommendation to postpone the second reading of the ordinance. Director Ericson stated that the Council could move to wait for the second reading for an allotted period of time. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Many) Motion carried. Mr. Bourassa asked if the delay for the second reading is customary. Director Ericson stated the suggestion to wait for the second reading is to provide the City with leverage to ensure that the applicant submits a plan consistent with the City's vision for the area. He stated there will be a good faith effort to work together moving forward with the re-zoning. Coordinator Backman stated that for the purposes of the developer, there should be assurance of action. Councilmember Gunn stated that six months is awfully long to wait. Director Ericson stated that the second reading would be scheduled immediately after the Council considers the site plan and major subdivision application, with a maximum six month time limit. Councilmember Flaherty exited the Council meeting at 10:00 p.m. CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:00 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To continue the City Council meeting until 10:45 p.m. Ayes - 4 Nays -0 Motion carried. J. Resolution 6890 Approving Change Order No. 2 for the Random Park Building Replacement Project. Director Lee explained that the first Change Order was for a soils correction. He stated that the soils correction would have had to be done regardless of moving the old building or building a new building. He stated the second issue is mold abatement that needs to be done. He stated that they removed siding and sheathing that was affected by the mold in regulation with the • Department of Health. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 22 Mayor Marty asked the cause of the mold, Director Lee stated it was due to an irrigation system. MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6890 Approving Change Order No. 2 for the Random Park Building Replacement Project. Councilmember Stigney stated he does not agree with the expense. Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. K. 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. Director Lee reported this issue was brought up at July 10~' and at that time the estimated cost was $43,420, which was not approved. Director Lee presented the Council with a revised proposal with a reduced cost estimate of $28,850. Director Lee explained the changes. He suggested reducing project meetings from four to two under Task One, and to reduce Bonestroo personnel from three to two. He explained that under Task Three, it has been suggested to delete the orientation and destination study for Groveland and Eastwood Drive. He suggested the City reduce number of site visits, reduce alternates from six to three, and for Task 10 and 11, reduce the number of meetings. He stated the Council could hold a work session/neighborhood meeting, and have Staff vs. Consultants present the final report. Councilmember Flaherty returned at 10:05 p.m. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, asked who requested the traffic study. He stated traffic has not changed too much and suggested the traffic study be done when Medtronic is finished. He stated he does not understand why it would be done now and believes it should be done when Medtronic is finished. Mayor Marty stated the study is more involved. He stated that he would rather run traffic counters across the streets and then determine traffic after Medtronic is finished. Mr. Jahnke agreed. Councilmember Gunn stated that residents requested the traffic count. She asked if the purpose of the study is to determine what is going on regarding traffic in the City, and asked what the City will do with the numbers once they get them. Director Lee addressed the Medtronic question and stated there was a traffic study done as part of the Medtronic development. He stated that those projected numbers would be incorporated into the proposed traffic study. He stated that waiting would cost more money to do changes to • certain areas so that the roads are done before Medtronic is in. He stated the study would determine what needed to be done as far as Medtronic is concerned. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 23 • Mayor Marty stated that if there are large projected numbers, the firm would identify streets needing traffic calming measures. He stated the residents have requested the traffic study. He suggested simple traffic counts could be sufficient and asked that such traffic counts be incorporated into the plan. Director Lee stated one of the activities in the study will determine what types of counts could be done on certain roads. Mayor Marty asked if the City could contract with the firm to determine what kinds of counts can and should be done. Mayor Marty reiterated his concern about the cost of the study. He asked if BRAA could determine the least amount that needs to be done. Councilmember Gunn asked if the study would give a false count with County Road J blocked off. Director Lee stated that there is a factor that MNDOT uses for construction traffic that will be incorporate into the BRAA study. Councilmember Gunn asked about the intent of the study. Director Lee stated it is to determine what can be done in the northwest area with street design and traffic calming, and what the effects on other roads will be with the other options. He stated the intent is to determine what options they have and the impact of various street redevelopment. Mayor Marty pointed out that previous traffic studies did not take into account City streets, they just measured arterials. Director Lee stated there is data regarding zip codes so that the firm will know what kind of traffic will be coming through Mounds View. Councilmember Flaherty stated that several problems were identified and addressed. He stated that he does understand the benefit of the Study. Mayor Marty asked who supports traffic counters. Councilmember Stigney stated the City has the traffic counters and suggested the counters be used. MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and deny 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. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mayor Marty asked if traffic counters could be used. Director Lee asked for some latitude from the City to work with BRAA about what the City can do regarding some traffic counts, but not studies. Councilmember Thomas asked the letter of agreement be limited. L. Resolution 6892 Approving the Selection of Oops Dinner Theatre as a . Mounds View Community Center tenant and Authorizing staff to prepare an Interim Lease Agreement. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 24 Coordinator Backman stated that the Council would be leasing space for a dinner theater. He stated that the dinner theater is looking to relocate after an issue with their space in Roseville. Coordinator Backman stated the applicants toured the Community Center and determined it would be an acceptable space for their theater. He stated it provides excellent visibility and accessibility for their guests. Coordinator Backman stated there is a proposal for ashort-term lease of seven months to allow the theater to finish their summer series and holiday show. He stated it would allow the City a profit-generating use with low risk. He stated the agreement would allow for renegotiation of the contract for a potential long-term lease. Coordinator Backman stated that from a revenue standpoint, about 8,000 tickets will be sold, and the revenue to the City in the next seven months is $34,000, on an annualized basis, it will be $45,000 to $48,000. Coordinator Backman stated that Staff recommends approval of the Oops Dinner Theater and instructions to Staff to prepare a lease agreement. He stated there will be another time where the Council will review the lease agreement. MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6892 Approving the Selection of Oops Dinner Theatre as a Mounds View Community Center tenant and Authorizing Staff to prepare an Interim Lease Agreement. Councilmember Flaherty asked if alcohol would be involved with the dinner theater. Coordinator Backman replied it would and explained the caterer who is interested in working with the theater group. Councilmember Flaherty stated that the lease offers the City additional time to reconsider the fitness center plans at the Community Center. He asked Oops Dinner Theater about the 6.8% of tickets sales that will be given to the City. Coordinator Backman replied there are some discounts on certain types of tickets, such as senior citizens, youth, and large groups. He stated that the discounts represent less than 20% of the tickets sold, which may reduce the net revenues by the City about 2-3%. Councilmember Flaherty replied he would like more than the 6.8% ticket revenue as a rental fee. Mary Kay Fangel, of Oops Dinner Theater, explained that in addition to the 6.8%, Oops will pay $1000 base rental every month. She stated they are hoping to give a discount to Mounds View residents. Councilmember Stigney stated that he would like to have access to the income statements from Oops after the interim lease. Coordinator Backman replied that the theater is willing to provide • detailed records. Ms. Fangel replied that they would provide all financial documents to the City. She stated that the caterer will be receiving the funds from the liquor and food sales will handle Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 25 the appropriate licensing and permits. Councilmember Stigney stated that the Community Center makes profit off of liquor sales and suggested Oops Theater take that into consideration. Councilmember Stigney asked about the language "lessee may consider an additional base rate" in the lease and suggested some language be moved. Coordinator Backman stated it is a rough draft and he will revise and improve the lease. Councilmember Thomas stated that the main goal of the Community Center task force is to make the space available to the residents. She stated that she would like to ensure that a banquet center and facilities are open to residents. She stated that some revenue coming in on a temporary basis is positive, but the City needs to determine what they want for the space long-term. Councilmember Thomas stated that she is not convinced that the dinner theater is a long-term solution. She explained that the dinner theater will not serve the entire community and she would like the banquet center to be open to the public. She stated every time a proposal is introduced in which the building will make money, it reduces its capacity to serve the residents. Councilmember Stigney stated that the fitness center would not produce revenue. He stated that the Oops Theater will give the City time to discuss the Community Center, which may or may not include the theater. Councilmember Gunn stated concern about the Oops Theater's schedule because there is a significant amount of time that the Community Center will be unavailable. She noted her concern that the banquet facility will not be available for residents. She mentioned the banquet facility and senior room will be occupied. She stated that she understands the need to bring in added revenue to keep the Center going. Marta McIntyre, manager of the Community Center, commented on the use of the Event Center. She stated that allowing Oops Theater limits programming in the Community Center that will be offered to residents. Mayor Marty commented that people are being turned away from the Community Center due to scheduling. Ms. McIntyre stated that the rooms requested by Oops Theater are the only ones that will house over 15 people. She added that three wedding requests are being held off until after the Council's decision. Mayor Marty stated he does not believe Oops Theater is consistent with the key findings for the Community Center. He stated his belief that Oops Theater would alienate Mounds View citizens. He stated that Mounds View residents often use other Cities' facilities because they cannot afford to use Mounds View's. He stated the new Community Center Coordinator should work with the YMCA for a marketing plan. • Ms. Fangel stated that November, December, and January are peak times for their shows, and Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 26 they are hoping to schedule for the needs during those times, but are willing to be flexible with the facility use. She stated that there are breaks between the shows and they are not looking to monopolize the space. She stated the main reason for using the multipurpose C room is for rehearsals. She stated that weekends are their peak times and they are hoping to use those dates regularly. Councilmember Flaherty asked how important Multipurpose Room C is to McIntyre and the Community Center. She responded that it is the main room used for their programming. She stated it is being used 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She added that the Multipurpose Room would be unavailable during performances as well. City Attorney Riggs suggested no decision should be made on the resolution and that Staff should come back with a lease at the next meeting. Councilmembers Stigney and Flaherty WITHDREW their motion to approve Resolution 6892 Approving the Selection of Oops Dinner Theatre as a Mounds View Community Center tenant and Authorizing Staff to prepare an Interim Lease Agreement. MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To Direct Staff to prepare a Lease Agreement with Oops Dinner Theater and bring it back to the Council for approval. • Councilmember Flaherty asked that Oops Theater and the Community Center Staff work together regarding scheduling. Councilmember Gunn asked about the weddings. Mr. McIntyre replied there is one in September, one in April, and one in June. Councilmember Gunn asked if they should go ahead and book the weddings. Councilmember Flaherty stated the only one in conflict would be September. Mayor Marty stated that he would approve the weddings. Councilmember Thomas asked for an answer regarding weddings. She stated that the Council needs to make the decision. Councilmember Stigney stated that he would like to go back to the original option approving the six-month lease with Oops. Ayes - 4 Nays - 1 (Marty) Motion carried. CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:50 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To continue the City Council meeting until 11:10 p.m. Ayes - 5 Nays -0 Motion carried. • Mr. Jahnke stated he attended the Airport Commission meeting and approved a runway. He Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 27 stated the noise counts are up and there is a consideration of a motel and restaurant in the corner near the airport. Councilmember Thomas asked about the noise count from Mounds View residents. Mr. Jahnke stated he would supply the Council with the count. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Stigney asked to remove Item A. B. Licenses for Approval C. Resolution 6887 Approving the 2006 Festival in the Park Agreement D. Resolution 6885 Approval to hire a Police Officer to Fill the Current Opening on the Police Department E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, August 14, 2006, at 7:05 p.m. Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2932 Wooddale Drive. MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/STIGNEY. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. A. Resolution 6881 Removal of Propane Tank/Filling Station Councilmember Stigney asked if the current station runs on electricity. Public Works Supervisor Pittman stated it is a natural gas-run motor and originally had afive-gallon propane tank that was there for emergencies. He stated that there is one vehicle left on it, but they are replacing a 1,000- gallon tank to back it up in case of emergency. He stated they have never had to use it. Councilmember Stigney asked the costs to run it off of electric. Public Works Supervisor Pittman stated it has been considered, and due to emergency situations, the natural gas may be the way to go for back-up. MOTION/SECOND: GLJNN/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6881, Removal of Propane Tank/Filling Station. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS Councilmember Flaherty asked Finance Director Beer to comment about cell phones. Finance Director Beer stated that the City has reduced monthly phone bill by $250 by changing their plan with Nextel. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 28 MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 26, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes B. July 10, 2006 Regular Session C. July 10, 2006 Executive Session The Council agreed to add the minute corrections and approvals to the next Council meeting agenda as a special order of business. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council Mayor Marty mentioned the Festival in the Park and stated that last month's Mounds View Matters is being delivered. • Councilmember Thomas asked if Staff looks into the delay in delivery for the Mounds View Matters. Mayor Marty stated it is getting worse instead of better. Councilmember Gunn stated it does no good to have it delivered after the programs are passed. Councilmember Thomas stated she has heard more about Mounds View Matters from residents than she has about billboards. B. Reports of Staff Director Lee reported regarding the street project, about whether to include Sherwood Road in with the proposed road redevelopment projects. He stated the deadline for the voting form was Friday and two votes were received, one in favor, one opposed. Director Lee recommended the previous survey as atie-breaker and that the section of Sherwood not be included. Mayor Marty stated that the City asked for a traffic study and the costs surprised the Council. He commended Director Lee for working on the study as the Council asked. C. Reports of City Attorney City Attorney Riggs stated there is with a summary and a proposal finalizing the issues with Police Chief Ramaker. He stated he would like to finalize this officially. Councilmember Thomas asked if the issue could be brought back at the next meeting. City Attorney Riggs stated that is fine. 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, August 7, 2006, at 7 p.m. Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 29 Negt Council Meeting: Monday, August 14, 2006, at 7 p.m. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m. Transcribed by: Lauren McKay Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • •