HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2006/10/092
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
• 44
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
October 9, 2006
Mounds View City Hall
2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:00 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGL~NCE
3. ROLL CALL: Mayor Marty, Councilmember Stigney, Councilmember Gunn,
Councilmember Flaherty, and Councilmember Thomas
NOT PRESENT: None.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, October 9, 2006 City Council Agenda
MOTION/SECOND: GLJNN/THOMAS. To Approve the Monday, October 9, 2006 agenda as
presented.
Ayes - 5
Nays - 0 Motion carried.
5. PUBLIC INPUT
None.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 pm Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6945 Approving a
Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2925 County Road H2.
Planning Associate Heller explained that the current owner has a small garage that he would like
to demolish or move to allow the building of a new garage. She stated he is requesting a garage
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
1 that would be 24 feet by 48 feet, which would be constructed to comply with the five-foot
2 setback as required in the City code. She added that the current garage is non-complying.
4 Planning Associate Heller explained the dimensions of the property and neighboring properties.
5 She stated the new garage would benefit the neighborhood and would be consistent with the
6 comprehensive plan.
8 Planning Associate Heller stated the additional storage would be used for several cars, which are
9 currently stored in the driveway. She noted that letters were sent to neighboring properties and
1 o no comments were received. She stated Staff recommends approval.
11
12 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
13
14 Hearing no comment, Mayor Many closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m.
15
16 Councilmember Stigney asked if a new driveway would be built to accommodate the newer
17 garage. Planning Associate Heller replied it would.
is
19 Councilmember Flaherty asked about the height of the garage. Planning Associate Heller replied
20 it would fall within the I S-foot height limit.
21
22 Councilmember Thomas asked if the Council believes it is acceptable to hear the requests,
23 particularly given the discussion at the last Council meeting regarding oversized garages. She
24 noted there are many requests for such structures.
25
26 Mayor Marty stated it was his understanding that the issue of oversized garages was referred
27 back to Staff and the Planning Commission, but the present policy is still currently in effect. He
28 noted that such issues are still governed by current ordinances and codes.
29
3o Community Development Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission discussed
31 the issue of oversize garages at their Last meeting and will discuss it further at the next meeting.
32 He stated the Planning Commission would make a determination about whether the current
33 regulations are suitable and if there should be a resident task force regarding oversize accessory
34 buildings.
35
36 Councilmember Thomas stated it would be helpful to bring in a consultant to discuss driveway
37 and other surfaces at the same time.
38
39 Councilmember Flaherty asked at what point the Council should ask for an architectural
4o rendering of the garage to ensure it is consistent with the property and neighborhood. Director
41 Ericson explained that the applicant must submit a floor plan, site plan, and layout for the
42 proposed garage. He stated Staff does not always get a good sense of what the garage will look
43 like nor are there requirements guiding the look of the garages. He explained that the code states
44 that the accessory buildings must be consistent with the principal structures, but beyond the
45 actual size limit, there are no regulations.
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
• 1
2 Mayor Marty stated he visited the property and relayed that the existing garage is quite small. He
3 stated he understands the resident's desire for a larger garage. He said he read the Planning
4 Commission's review of the oversize garage issues and that the Commission touched on all the
5 points.
6
7 Councilmember Thomas noted that the new garage would bring the building into compliance
8 with setbacks and other code regulations.
9
1 o Councilmember Gunn asked if the old garage would be demolished. Planning Associate Heller
11 stated the applicant has not determined whether it will be moved and used as a storage shed or
12 demolished.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Councilmember Flaherty noted that if the current garage would be moved, it would then be in
compliance.
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6945
Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2925 County Road H2.
Councilmember Stigney stated the Planning Commission should look at overall issues regarding
oversize garages and accessory buildings.
Mayor Marty asked about the square footage of the current garage. Planning Associate Heller
replied that it is 224 square feet.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
B. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6942 Adopting a Special Assessment
Levy for Delinquent Public Utility Accounts
31 Finance Director Beer stated legal notice of the hearing was published on September 20, 2006,
32 and that on September 19, 2006, legal notices were sent to the delinquent property owners. He
33 stated the accounts subject to the assessment were delinquent two quarters as of August 31, 2006.
34
35 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
36
37 Hearing no comment, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
38
39 Councilmember Flaherty explained these are the utility bills that are sent to residents quarterly.
40 He stated it is the residents' obligation to pay the bills.
41
42 Mayor Marty stated that historically the City shut off water, which created hardships, and the
43 policy was changed to the assessment method a couple years ago. He stated if the bills are not
• 44 paid, they are then assessed against the properly.
45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
. 1 Mayor Marty noted that several properties, which have been delinquent in the past, are not on the
2 current list of delinquencies.
3
4 MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6942
5 Adopting a Special Assessment Levy for Delinquent Public Utility Accounts.
6
7 Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
8
9 C. 7:15 pm Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6943 Adopting a Special
10 Assessment Levy for Diseased Tree Removals
11
12 Finance Director Beer explained that a legal notice of the hearing was published in the
13 September 20, 2006 edition of the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin. He said individual
14 notices of the meeting were sent to the affected property owners on September 19, 2006.
15
16 Finance Director Beer stated that the property owners could pay the amount due by 4:30 p.m. on
17 October 9 in order to avoid the $30 administrative fee. He said that after the roll was submitted,
18 property owners would be assessed the administrative fee.
19
20 Finance Director Beer explained that property owners must prepay the assessment between
21 October 10, 2006 and November 10, 2006 without paying additional interest, but after that, an
22 interest rate of 6.0% would accrue from November 10, 2006 through the payment date.
• 23
24 Finance Director Beer stated it is a 3-year assessment. He stated Staff recommends opening a
25 public hearing for public comment.
26
27 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
28
29 Hearing no comment, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
30
31 MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6943
32 Adopting a Special Assessment Levy for Diseased Tree Removals.
33
34 Mayor Marty explained that the assessments are fairly routine.
35
36 Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
37
38 D. Public Hearing to receive Public Input to Consider Resolution 6944 Adopting
39 a Special Assessment Levy for Charges abating a nuisance condition at 5200-
40 OZ Raymond Avenue
41
42 Finance Director Beer explained that a legal notice of the public hearing was published in the
43 September 20, 2006 edition of the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin and an individual notice
44 was sent to the affected property owner and previous property owners on September 19, 2006.
• 45 He noted that the Council denied an appeal of the charges on August 28, 2006.
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
1
2 Finance Director Beer said the owner must prepay between October 10, 2006 and November 10,
3 2006 to avoid paying additional interest. He added that after November 10, 2006 interest at the
4 rate of 6.0% will accrue from November 10, 2006 through the payment date.
5
6 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m.
7
8 Hearing no comment, Mayor Many closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
9
l0 Councilmember Thomas stated the property owner is focusing on recovering the fines from the
11 original property owner. Finance Director Beer stated both property owners were noticed and the
12 hope is both owners can work out the payment of the fees.
13
14 Mayor Marty asked if the property had been sold and closed. He asked how the City could assess
15 the fee if there is a new owner. Finance Director Beer replied that the fee is assessed against the
16 property, not the owner, and assessing the current owner is the only way to recover the costs. He
17 stated it is the City's hope the pervious and new owners can work out the issue.
18
19 Mayor Marty stated the previous owner said he had been burned by his renter and expressed his
20 opinion that the new owner could be burned by the previous owner. He stated that regardless of
21 the owner, the City did incur the cost.
22
.23 Finance Director Beer stated an attempt was made to contact the new owner through the title
24 company, but no contact could be made.
25
26 MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6944
27 Adopting a Special Assessment Levy for Charges abating a nuisance condition at 5200-02
28 Raymond Avenue.
29
30 Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
31
32 E. 7:25 pm Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 780,
33 an Ordinance Approving Modifications to the Official City Wetland Zoning
34 District Maps
35
36 Director Ericson explained that this item would bring forward an updated series of map
37 illustrating the City's wetlands based on City code that was adopted in 1982 designating wetlands
38 as protected areas.
39
40 Director Ericson stated that the maps provide the City the ability to oversee the 100-foot buffer
41 zone around wetlands. He stated that the maps were authorized by the Council and are much
42 more current.
43
r 1
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
1 Director Ericson stated that moving forward, there have been numerous examples where the
2 wetlands mapped in 1982 are not consistent with current wetlands. He stated it could create
3 problems with residents and developers.
4
5 Director Ericson said that the old maps could not be updated electronically, but the current series
6 of maps are easily changed and modified to better represent current wetlands. He pointed out
7 several areas of change in four different areas. Director Ericson explained that he is more than
8 happy to print maps for residents illustrating their properties.
9
l0 Director Ericson explained the four primary changes. He said in the northwest corner of the City,
11 there is a very small wetland completely in Spring Lake Park and a 100-foot buffer extends into
12 Mounds View. He asked if the City would like to enforce a setback on a wetland that is not
13 within the City property.
14
15 Director Ericson noted on the north side of Section 6 there is a wetland area that was identified in
16 the east half of the section along Long Lake Road. He stated that the area has been wet for a
17 significant time, there is evidence of wetland characteristics, however the wetland is new on the
18 current map. He pointed out the new wetland on the map.
19
20 Director Ericson stated there are a couple of lots on the corner of Spring Lake Road and County
21 Road 10 that have been set aside under a Storm Water Easement. He stated the wetland is a
22 storm water pond and has undertaken several criteria of a wetland and has now been classified as
23 one. He also noted a drainage ditch along County Road 10 that has been designated as protected,
24 but said he was not sure that the intent of the code was to buffer drainage ditches.
25
26 Director Ericson stated the other wetland that was added was Spring Lake. He stated it is not a
27 wetland, it is a lake, which was how it was shown in the original map. He stated the Council has
28 some latitude to determine if the lake should be designated as a wetland on the maps.
29
3o Director Ericson explained that there are two to three areas where drainage ditches in the County
31 Road 10 corridor were listed as protected wetlands and again asked if it was the original intent of
32 the code to buffer such areas.
33
34 Director Ericson stated that the code was originally intended to protect the significant wetlands.
35 He said the Council acted proactively by adopting such regulations in 1982. He stated a notice
36 was mailed to all property owners adjoining the wetlands, as such residents may not be familiar
37 with the 100-foot buffer area.
38
39 Director Ericson explained that the buffer area was created to establish an area in which the City
40 could review what was built in the area. He stated that it allows the City to review any
41 construction in the buffer area. He explained that development up to the edge of the wetland
42 often causes degradation. He stated some property owners might question the boundaries and
43 buffer areas. He recommended the Council continue the public hearing through the next meeting
44 so all residents can have a chance to review the maps and ordinance.
45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
1 Director Ericson explained the process for the ordinance and said no action would take place at
2 present. He said the intent is not to cause any confusion or consternation among the residents.
3 He stated the City wants to ensure that awareness is raised about wetlands and the purpose the
4 regulations serve.
5
6 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.
7
8 Bob King, 7408 Silver Lake Road, asked if there are street addresses on the map. Director
9 Ericson stated there were not. Mr. King stated his concern is the houses in the wetland area. He
l0 said street addresses are key to the maps. He also asked if there is a dispute about the wetland
11 boundary, how it will be handled.
12
13 Director Ericson replied that the map in front of the Council presently does not have addresses,
14 but the maps can easily include addresses. He stated it would be a good idea for the City if SEH
15 could physically verify what is on the maps if there are boundary questions from the residents.
16 He stated he would like to ensure the maps are as accurate as possible. Director Ericson stated
1~ that if there are enough questions, the second reading could be deferred to ensure that such areas
18 are cleared up.
19
20 Mr. King stated that without knowing where his property is located on the map it is difficult to
21 determine where the wetland buffer falls.
22
23 Mayor Marty stated that the wetland and buffer zones have shrunk on a significant portion of
24 properties affected by wetlands and wetland buffers.
25
26 Mayor Marty asked about the cost of having the engineers physically survey the areas. Director
27 Ericson replied that depending on time, it could be between $50-75. He stated the cost should be
28 the City's responsibility. Director Ericson encouraged Mr. King and others with questions to call
29 him at City Hall.
30
31 Mark Schnor, 2949 County Highway 10, stated that an area marked a wetland at Spring Lake
32 Road and County Road 10 is a drainage ditch holding pond. He stated there was a wetland
33 behind the property and the drainage ditch was put in front due to site constraints. He stated the
34 question is if a drainage ditch or pond should be considered a wetland.
35
36 Mr. Schnor explained that his home is within the 100-foot buffer of the drainage ditch. He said
37 his problem is with his home being so close, and being on PUD ground, whether he could
38 develop his land. He asked if the properly value is affected by the designation of the holding
39 pond as a wetland.
40
41 Director Ericson stated the area was not previously wetland and was created as part of the
42 adjoining development. He stated the area is considered a wetland by the Rice Creek Watershed
43 District and asked if the City would like to consider it a wetland as well. He stated his concern is
44 also whether or not to consider drainage ditches and pond wetlands. He stated the designation
45 does not prohibit development, but means it is subject to a review process.
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
1
2 Mayor Marty stated he spoke to the Schnors about their question and concern. He stated he
3 would have no problem striking drainage ditches and ponds from the wetland map.
4
5 Mike Read, 2208 Lois Drive, stated when he moved into his house in 1988, the map indicated an
6 area near his home was a drainage ditch and is now listed as a wetland. He stated it was named a
7 drainage ditch when he moved in. Mayor Marty explained that Mr. Read has gone through
8 several review processes regarding the drainage ditch and its wetland designation.
9
to Lori Mitchell, 2479 Park View Terrace, stated her property abuts the Silver View Pond. She
11 stated that she received the letter and asked if the new wetland map would currently affect her
12 property. Mayor Marty stated Ms. Mitchell has some land, a trail, and a lawn, which should
13 provide sufficient buffer.
14
15 Ms. Mitchell asked if the new map would affect her dog kennel on the edge of the buffer zone.
16 Mayor Marty stated any existing structures would probably be grandfathered in, but the new
17 wetland map may affect future development and construction.
18
19 Director Ericson reiterated that it is understood that Silver View Pond is a wetland and many do
20 not realize that there is a 100-foot buffer. He stated the desire of the City is to ensure that all
21 citizens are aware of the requirements and the wetland buffer restrictions.
22
23 Mayor Marty noted that Mounds View's wetland codes are more stringent than many other cities.
24 He commended the past councils for preserving wetlands and controlling water runoff. He stated
25 the City was being proactive by placing such restrictions on wetlands. He explained the benefits
26 of wetlands in the City. He also noted the role of the City to be stewards of the earth and natural
27 resources by protecting the wetlands.
28
29 Councilmember Thomas suggested Director Ericson discuss the wetlands with the Rice Creek
3o Watershed District and ask why such areas are considered wetlands, particularly along the
31 County Road 10 Corridor.
32
33 Director Ericson explained that the City has aerial imaging going back to the 1930s. He said that
34 at one point, in the 1950s or 1960s, there is an obvious change in the photos. He stated that the
35 Rice Creek Watershed District does not have any specific requests as far as a buffer setback is
36 concerned.
37
38 Mayor Marty asked if Mr. Read's property is in a wetland buffer. Mr. Read explained that when
39 he applied for the variance from the Watershed District, they measured 50 feet from the center of
40 his ditch and explained that he had to get a variance from the Rice Creek Watershed District to
41 build within their buffer zone.
42
43 Councilmember Thomas left at 8:01 p.m.
44
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
• 1 Mayor Marty agreed with Councilmember Thomas that Director Ericson should speak with the
2 Rice Creek Watershed District regarding their setback requirements, particularly regarding
3 drainage ditches and ponds.
4
5 Director Ericson asked the Council if Spring Lake should be considered wetland. He stated
6 historically the City has treated it as a lake, not a wetland, and has not required 100-foot buffers.
7 Mayor Marty stated he would consider the area a lake and that no action would be taken.
8
9 Mr. Schnor asked if the holding pond on Spring Lake Road was considered a wetland, how it
to would affect the PUD. Director Ericson responded it would not affect any kind of redevelopment
11 scenario and it would still be considered a storm water holding pond. He stated the City controls
12 the holding pond so it could not be included in any redevelopment activity as a storm water
13 management pond. Mr. Schnor asked if his property would be grandfathered in. Director
14 Ericson stated it would be up to Mr. Schnor if he wanted to redevelop in the area.
15
16 Mr. Schnor asked how a wetland designation would affect property value. Director Ericson
17 replied that there is no clear answer, but it certainly would not decrease property value, but could
I8 potentially increase it.
19
20 MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To continue the public hearing until the next
21 Council meeting on October 23, 2006.
• 22
23 Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
24
25 F. Informational Presentation regarding the upcoming referendum on the
26 Transportation Constitutional Amendment. Powerpoint Presentation by
27 Bruce Nustad, President, Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce.
28
29 Mr. Nustad explained the role of the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce and gave the
3o Council some background about traffic issues plaguing the Twin Cities area. He stated that
31 transportation hassles are experienced daily, that they have been perceived as getting worse, and
32 are viewed as a State issue, which has created the "perfect political storm."
33
34 Councilmember Thomas returned at 8:09 p.m.
35
36 Mr. Nustad explained that there have been transportation solutions in the past that have been
37 difficult to pass due to geopolitical issues. He explained that only 54% of the 6.5% vehicle sales
38 tax that raises about $6 billion dollars annually is dedicated to transit and highways.
39
4o Mr. Nustad explained that there is a ballot amendment which will do three things:
41 1. Dedicate all existing tax,
42 2. Phase in over 5 years, and
43 3. Create a balanced formula for using the funding.
44
45 Mr. Nustad stated it will be a constitutional amendment so, over a 5-year period, 40% of funds
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
1 will be dedicated to public transit assistance and no more than 60% dedicated to highway
2 purposes. He stated such language is the most controversial aspect of the proposed legislation.
3
4 Mr. Nustad noted how the funds would be allocated. He stated growth in general fund revenues
5 will more than replace the funds being moved for this project.
6
7 Mr. Nustad explained the deficiencies of the amendment. He said it would not be a "quick fix"
8 for needed amendments, would not eliminate the legislature's ability to direct transportation
9 funding to different regions of the State, nor would it raise taxes.
10
11 Mr. Nustad explained the Minnesotans for Better Roads and Transit (MBRT) group and what
12 they do. He said the group is a broad coalition dedicated to improving transportation comprised
i3 of more than 900 organizations and businesses. He stated the group was formed to support
14 passage of the Minnesota's Transportation Amendment, and plans to spend $3-4 million
15 supporting the amendment.
16
17 Mr. Nustad noted there is no group opposing roads, but there is one legislator who believes the
18 language is too difficult for the average citizen to understand.
19
20 Mr. Nustad noted several organizations and groups who are members of MBRT. He stated there
21 is public consensus that new revenue is needed for transportation improvements and that
• 22 transportation taxes should be used for transportation.
23
24 Mr. Nustad went over fact vs. fiction regarding transportation and the current budget and
25 spending. He said that there is the perception that Minnesota's Transportation Amendment will
26 result in budget cuts in other parts of the State budget. He explained that State revenues typically
27 grow by hundreds of millions of dollars (or billions) each year. He said that by phasing in the
28 amendment over five years, the impact on the growth in State revenue would only be $60 million
29 annually.
30
31 Mr. Nustad stated that some believe the State Constitution should not be changed to dedicate
32 taxes. He responded to the argument, saying that the Minnesota Constitution already dedicates
33 two taxes for transportation -gas tax and vehicle license tab fees.
34
35 Mr. Nustad said that Minnesota's Transportation Amendment would not be easily passed because
36 the threshold for passing a constitutional amendment is a majority of all voters. He explained
37 that the absence of a vote is a "no" vote on the ballot.
38
39 Mr. Nustad also stated that a fictional belief is that Minnesota's Transportation Amendment
4o would only take care of metro transit projects. He explained that State law already exists to
41 direct funding from motor vehicle sales tax to both roads and transit throughout the State and the
42 amendment will not change that. He stated that is the reason nearly 900 organizations support
43 the amendment.
• 44
45 Mr. Nustad thanked the Council for allowing him to discuss the issue. He encouraged the City to
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
• i discuss the issue with residents so they can make a solid, informed decision.
2
3 Mr. Nustad stated residents could call the 763-571-9781 or visit www.voteyesmn.org for more
4 information on the issue.
5
6 Councilmember Stigney asked how many formal presentations Mr. Nustad has given before
7 councils. Mr. Nustad replied that this is the first presentation.
8
9 Councilmember Stigney noted he does not support the public presentation supporting such a bill.
to He stated he is not against a neutral presentation, but he is not supporting a particular stance on
11 the issue. Mr. Nustad stated he is before the Council to ask the Council to take a position.
12
13 Mayor Marty stated he spoke with the Council and City Administrator about the issue, and the
14 Council will not pass a resolution in support of the issue. He stated the decision should be up to
15 voters of the State of Minnesota.
16
17 Mayor Marty clarified that the tax is not a new tax, but funds would be diverted instead. Mr.
18 Nustad stated it is a current tax, not one that will add a new tax.
19
20 Councilmember Stigney stated the 40% will be diverted for transit, not for transportation. Mayor
21 Marty said that it is not a new tax on vehicles, but it will be diverted to a different budget.
• 22
23 Councilmember Flaherty asked whether Mr. Nustad has supporting evidence that the diversion of
24 funds would not result in an increase in taxes. Mr. Nustad stated he has reports from the
25 Department of Revenue that indicate the diversion will not cause an increase in taxes, but said
26 that nothing is certain.
27
28 Mayor Marty pointed out his concern that by putting vehicle taxes into transportation and transit,
29 other programs could suffer.
30
31 Councilmember Gunn thanked Mr. Nustad for bringing the information forward to help increase
32 voter awareness of the issue.
33
34 Councilmember Thomas stressed that a blank vote is counted as a "no" vote. She reminded
35 voters that if they do not vote "yes," they are voting "no."
36
37 Mayor Marty brought up the issue of the stop light on Silver Lake Road and that the County said
38 there are no funds for public transportation and roads. He noted the dilemma is Statewide.
39
40 G. Resolution 6946 Approving a Step Increase for Nate Behlen, Mounds View
41 Public Works Employee.
42
43 City Administrator Ulrich read the resolution.
44
45 MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To adopt Resolution 6946 Approving a Step Increase
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
w 1 for Nate Behlen, Mounds View Public Works Employee.
2
3 Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
4
5 H. Resolution 6947 Appointing Brett Brisbois to a Vacancy in the Water
6 Division of the Public Works Department
7
8 Director Lee stated that the City Council authorized the advertisement of the vacancy in the
9 Water Division that was created by appointing Mike Schnur as the Lead Utility Worker. Director
1o Lee explained that the City received 26 applications for the vacant water position. He said the
i t applicants were pointed and interviews were scheduled with four applicants.
12
13 Director Lee said that Staff has reviewed the credentials of the four applicants that were
14 interviewed and recommend Brett Brisbois for the position.
15
16 Director Lee pointed out that Mr. Brisbois received a certificate in Water Environmental Studies
17 from Saint Cloud Technical College, possesses a Minnesota Water Supply System Operators
18 Class D license, and has a Minnesota Wastewater Operators Class D license. He continued that
19 as a requirement for the position, Mr. Brisbois also possesses a Commercial Drivers License
20 (CDL). He added that Mr. Brisbois has a Minnesota Special Engineers Boilers License and
21 possesses the necessary computer and mechanical skills.
• 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Director Lee recommended that Mr. Brisbois be hired in accordance with the 2004-2005 Labor
Agreement with the Public Works Collective Bargaining Unit. He said he would qualify for
Level A pay scale, which is currently established at $19.25 per hour.
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6947
Appointing Brett Brisbois to a Vacancy in the Water Division of the Public Works Department.
Mayor Marty commented that the City is fortunate to have Mr. Brisbois on staff with his
qualifications, licenses, and skills. He asked if Mr. Brisbois would be using the position as a
stepping-stone to other places. Director Lee noted that the other places Mr. Brisboios worked
were as internships.
Ayes - 5
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Nays - 0 Motion carried.
Councilmember Stigney asked to remove Item D.
A. License for Approval
B. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 23, 2006 at 710pm to Consider
First Reading of Ordinance 782, an Ordinance Amending Section 7.10 of the
Mounds View City Charter Referring to City Indebtedness.
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
• 1 C. Resolution 6948 Approving the County Road 10 Pedestrian Crossing Options
2 Report
3
4
5
6 MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended.
7
8 Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
9
10 D. Resolution 6949 Approving the Preliminary Design of Landscape
11 Architecture Elements for the County Road 10 Trailway Corridor
12
13 Councilmember Stigney stated his concern is that the Resolution does not specify the funding
14 source or cost.
15
16 Director Lee explained that within the capital improvement program that passed in August, the
17 trailway plans were approved and adopted. He shared the plan with the Council.
18
19 Councilmember Stigney stated his concern is that there are many areas in the plan that should be
20 considered further, rather than be voted upon in the Consent Agenda. He suggested the
21 Resolution be brought back for further discussion.
22
23 Councilmember Thomas explained that the Resolution does not approve spending money, and
24 that the plans will come back to the Council before any money is spent. She explained that the
25 Resolution approves various elements that will be included in the plan, not authorizing such
26 elements to be constructed.
27
28 Mayor Marty said his and Councilmember Stigney's concern is that such projects do not go
29 forward without Council approval.
30
31 Director Lee pointed out for each segment, the feasibility report will come back to the Council.
32 In addition, the plans and specs would come back and the project would have to be ordered and
33 approved by the Council.
34
35 Councilmember Thomas stated the current Resolution is before the Council because it saves
36 money by approving all of the proposed elements that could potentially be used in the design.
37
38 Councilmember Gunn agreed with Councilmember Thomas that the Council is approving the
39 preliminary design. She suggested that the elements the City has so far be brought together for a
40 more comprehensive look at the trailway corridor. She said it is a big project and before the City
41 loses sight of the project, a discussion should be held.
42
43 Councilmember Stigney stated that each segment is made up of many individual elements and his
44 concern is approving all elements. He said he would like to look at each element before they are
45 installed and that his problem is with the vague language of the Resolution.
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council would determine funding and specific elements
in the plans and specs, not in the current phase.
Director Lee suggested that the language be changed to "accept" rather than "approve."
Councilmember Stigney stated he would accept the preliminary plan as long as there are approval
and discussion of all the elements that go into each segment.
Councilmember Flaherty stated he would accept the language change from "approve" to
"accept."
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To adopt Resolution 6949 Accepting the Preliminary
Design of Landscape Architecture Elements for the County Road 10 Trailway Corridor, as
amended.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
Councilmember Gunn suggested the Council note their questions and discuss them with Finance
Director Beer at a later date.
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as
Presented.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 11, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes
Mayor Marty noted he and Councilmember Gunn called in their changes to City Administrator
Ulrich.
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To Approve the September, 2006 City Council meeting
minutes as corrected.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
Mayor Many pointed out that since the last Council meeting, there was a meeting at City Hall
about the stoplight at Silver Lake Road and County Road H. He stated Jan Weisner, Ken Heider,
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
1 Paul Good, City Administrator Ulrich, Director Lee, and County Staff were all in consensus that
2 the intersection needed and warranted a stoplight. He stated the County's budget has been cut
3 and there is no funding available for such a stoplight.
4
5 Mayor Marty asked how all the stoplights in New Brighton were done and why the County could
6 not install one in Mounds View. He continued that the County indicated they had the budget
7 when such stoplights were installed.
s
9 Mayor Marty stated that Mounds View is trying to come up with a cooperative effort with the
10 City of New Brighton and the County also donating funds to the project. He noted that Mounds
11 View has the City of New Brighton's cooperation.
12
13 Mayor Marty noted the Candidate's Forum video was much better than the original broadcast and
14 the rebroadcast will be on Channel 16. He noted that Communications Coordinator Blackford
is would attempt to get the Candidate's speeches broadcast on Channel 16 as well.
16
17 Mayor Marty noted that election day is coming up.
18
19 Councilmember Gunn noted that on October 27~' Pinewood would be celebrating their 50`"
20 anniversary. She noted the activities planned for the week.
21
22 Councilmember Stigney stated regarding the broadcast of the Forum, there were problems using
23 the equipment. He stated that the City discussed posting an operator's checklist and asked if it
24 had been removed. He asked City Administrator Ulrich to reestablish the checklist.
25
26 Councilmember Stigney stated that both the Chamber of Commerce and School Board have been
27 using the City to vote for various issues. He stated he would like the City to draft a policy
28 regulating the use of the City's cable service to ask for votes. City Administrator Ulrich stated it
29 would be discussed at a future work session.
30
31 B. Reports of Staff
32
33 1. Public Works Director's Report on Greenwood Drive
34
35 Director Lee reported that the City received a request to dead-end Greenwood Drive. He
36 explained that traffic counts were taken in two locations on Greenwood Drive, north of County
37 Road I and south of Sherwood. He noted the counts on each end and said both counts were
38 extremely low. He stated there does not seem to be an overabundance of vehicles using the road.
39
40 Director Lee stated Staff examined cul-de-sac requirements using the standard radiuses of 45 feet
41 and 60 feet in width. He showed the Council the impact on the properties in the area of putting
42 in a cul-de-sac on Greenwood Drive. He said in order to install a standard sized cul-de-sac, the
43 Council would have to acquire several properties. He stated that there would be a significant
44 impact on the properties that would have to be acquired.
45
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
1 Director Lee stated the City estimated that 5,000 square feet would have to be acquired, equaling
2 just under $12,000. He stated the City asked the Fire Chief and Police Chief about support for
3 such a cut-de-sac. He stated the Fire Chief did not support the cut-de-sac. He added that the City
4 has not heard from other residents along Greenwood Drive, but the resident across the street did
5 support the cut-de-sac. He suggested if the Council would like to go forward with the cut-de-sac,
6 a survey of residents should be done.
7
8 Director Lee explained the costs of the cut-de-sac and that there may be other impacts that have
9 not yet been discussed, such as the postal service and school bus service. He stated Staff is
i o looking for direction about how to proceed.
11
12 Mayor Many asked when the street is up for reconstruction. Director Lee stated it would be in
13 2007 or 2008.
14
15 Councilmember Flaherty stated the issue arose from a resident who was awaiting a response. He
16 stated the Council's next move should be to do nothing. He said the major issue is safety and the
17 road feeds into a major artery so he would support going no further with the project. He stated
18 Mr. Johnson now has the answer to the question he raised at the last Council meeting.
19
20 Councilmember Thomas said her concern is with how many of the properties the City would
21 have to acquire to put in a cut-de-sac, and that she does not see a justifiable concern for the cul-
22 de-sac. She stated she would not support such an action.
23
24 Director Lee stated the property owners have not been shown the plan.
25
26 Councilmember Gunn said most of the traffic is at the other end of the road. Director Lee
27 explained that the southern end had 422 vehicles a day, which is still very light, and the north end
28 had 132 vehicles. Director Lee indicated he was surprised at the difference in the traffic
29 numbers. He said a cut-de-sac could increase traffic.
30
31 Mayor Marty asked Director Lee to contact Mr. Johnson with the plans, show him the
32 information, and explain how the plan would impact the residents and properties.
33
34 Councilmember Thomas stated that most of the vehicles belong to residents in the area, based on
35 the counts.
36
37 Councilmember Gunn asked how the road would be blocked off. Director Lee explained how
38 the area would be changed and the removal of the concrete.
39
40 Director Lee noted that there would be an origin destination study on Red Oak Drive on
41 Wednesday to determine the percentage of vehicles that are cut-through traffic.
42
43 2. 2007 Budget Updates
44
45 Mayor Marty suggested contacting Finance Director Beer about the updates.
Mounds View City Council October 9, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
2 C. Reports of City Administrator
3
4 City Administrator Ulrich pointed out to the Council a sample of minutes that were done via web
5 streaming and suggested the Council review the minutes to determine if they would be willing to
6 allow the minutes to be created via a video or web streaming rather than live.
7
8 Mayor Many stated his only concern is if there was a problem with the master copy of the video.
9 He said if a tape recorder could be used it would be worth considering.
to
11 Councilmember Stigney asked if it would be considered for the Planning Commission as well.
12 City Administrator Ulrich pointed out there was not a web streaming option for the Planning
13 Commission.
14
15 Mayor Many said meeting minutes via web streaming would be tested for a single meeting on
16 the October 23, 2006.
17
18 The Council reached consensus to try the video minutes for the October 23, 2006.
19
20 12. Nezt Council Work Session: Monday, November 6, 2006, at 7 p.m.
21 Negt Council Meeting: Monday, October 23, 2006, at 7 p.m.
22
• 23 13. ADJOURNMENT
24
25 The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
26
27 Transcribed by:
28
29 Lauren McKay
30 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•