Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2006/06/26PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL go CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOT App Rov Regular Meeting June 26, 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, June 12, 2006 City Council Agenda City Administrator Ulrich recommended that Item 7M be considered before Item 7G because there are many people here to speak to that agenda item. MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To Approve the Monday, June 26, 2006 agenda amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC INPUT There was none. 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 773, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Relating to Landscaping, Fences and Retaining Walls (ROLL CALL VOTE) Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting PaLye 2 Community Development Director Ericson stated this action will update the zoning code regarding retaining walls, fencing, and landscaping. He said the Planning Commission discussed retaining walls and considered adding a definition for terraces and how the function of the code works in a practical sense, and recommended the amendment that was presented at the last City Council meeting. Community Development Director Ericson stated the ordinance adds definitions for landscaping and retaining walls, and clarifies that a retaining wall can be located in the same manner as a fence, cannot be located on a property line, but can be located without a setback. Community Development Director Ericson said Staff feels it is a good compromise and clarifies that a fence or retaining wall is not subject to a setback requirement. He noted the ordinance also prohibits certain kind of fencing, such as barbed wire or electrified fencing except in special cases such as water treatment facilities or those that need additional security. IIe said that such fences would be subject to public notifications and hearings. Community Development Director Ericson said the first reading of the ordinance was read at the last Council meeting and this is the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m, Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, noted that she had two suggestions dealing with safety and liability issues that she feels should be the concern of the Council. Ms. Amundsen suggested that "unless the said retaining wall will be directly next to an existing fence specifically installed to meet the building code requiring a minimum 5-foot fence around a swimming pool" be added to the retaining wall language. She explained that her neighbor built a retaining wall next to her fence, which she feels compromised the intent of the code. She said because of her neighbors' action, she and her husband spent extra money and time to increase the height of their fence to bring it up to code. She said her family built the fence taller for safety's sake and asked the Council to keep safety a priority. Ms. Amundsen stated that her instance may have been isolated, but if something had happened, she and the City could have been sued. She said she does not want herself or the City to be subject to a liability because of outdated codes. She said she also does not think it is fair for residents to have to pay to update their property to meet new safety codes. Ms. Amundsen also suggested for language to be added requiring all retaining walls two feet or higher to have safety devices, such as a fence or railing. She explained that someone could fall off a high retaining wall and it is no different than having railings on stairs. She noted that off of County Road H2, there is a very large retaining wall without a fence, which she believes is an accident waiting to happen. She said the Council needs to consider safety and liability when making these decisions. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, noted that Community Development Director Ericson spoke to him after the last meeting and that he appreciated the offer to speak to the Council about additional language. He stated that rather than changing the code and having to go back and change it again, it would make more sense to change it right the first time.. He asked the Council to consider additional issues and language. Mr. Amundsen asked whose insurance would be liable if a resident builds a retaining wall along a lot line, and someone else accidentally fell off — the person owns the wall, or the neighbor onto whose property the person fell. He asked the Council to consider such a liability issue before the code is voted upon. Mr. Amundsen asked if retaining walls are allowed to be built up to the easement or street in the front yard and asked how high they could be built. He stated he felt the Planning Commission did not address such issues. He suggested the code include language stating "at the discretion of City Staff." He asked the Council to not approve the ordinance and to send it back to the Planning Commission to address safety and liability issues. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Mayor Marty said the Amundsens raised some good points. Councilmember Flaherty said he believes the Amundsens have excellent suggestions, particularly addressing height of retaining wall against an existing fence. Councilmember Flaherty noted, however, the safety railing on any retaining wall could be problematic. He said he understands the liability question, but does not know if the code could cover all contingencies. He does believe some language regarding heights of existing fences would be beneficial. Councilmember Thomas agreed, but stated that she believes Ms. Amundsen's language is too specific. Councilmember Thomas also suggested that any retaining walls over a certain amount of feet, to be specified by the Council, be subject to safety inspections.. She added that both of the suggested languages could be inserted and would solve the issues. Councilmember Gunn asked if the judgment would be made by one person. Councilmember Thomas suggested it should come before the Council. Mayor Marty also agreed that Ms. Amundsen's language was too specific, but agrees with several of her points. He asked if the code should be investigated and sent back to the Planning Commission. He stated that when he refinished his deck, there were certain safety requirements he had to meet. He added that he understands how someone could step off a retaining wall. Community Development Director Ericson stated there were a few issues of concern and that it would have been helpful to have such suggestions before the second reading of the ordinance Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 because an amendment such as what is being proposed would require significant work. He suggested tabling the action would be the best option. Director Ericson said that procedurally, the ordinance could go back to the Planning Commission for further review, but that typically, after the first reading, an ordinance does not go back to the Planning Commission. Director Ericson stated that he talked with the Public Works Director regarding the retaining walls, and that while there are some instances in which a railing or fence would be necessary, he does not believe it should be legislated. He stated there may be a way to build some discretionary review into the ordinance, but would have to research the issue with City Attorney Riggs. Community Development Director Ericson said the issues could be discussed with City Attorney Riggs, the Amundsens, and Planning Commission, and then brought back to Council. He added that he agrees with Amundsens that the ordinance should only be improved upon once. Mayor Marty said he would like to take the time to straighten out the ordinance now rather than amending or changing it later. He said he would like something more specific and safety - related. He said he would be okay grandfathering in people who already have retaining walls and believes in the future, adding more language will cover the Council. Councilmember Thomas said the issues of 2-feet and under were brought up and said she does not want to get too specific with the code. She said she does not want to over -legislate what happens on private property. She added she would like to allow a City Staff person the discretion to make decisions regarding these issues. She said all over -legislation will do is make people not update these properties. City Attorney Riggs said Community Development Director Ericson's recommendations would be appropriate. Regarding the liability question, he said if something happens on private property, the City's insurance is not liable. He added that the issues brought up before the Council warrants further discussion. Councilmember Gunn said she agrees with Councilmember Thomas. She asked if it is the City's place to determine liability if people fall off one wall into a neighbor's yard. She said it is a private property issue. She said she agrees that specific legislation will make people not update their properties. Councilmember Stigney asked about the railing, and what kinds of railings would have to be legislated. IIe said he also believes the Council is over -legislating. Mr. Amundsen commented that the building code already legislates specifics, including steps off of decks. He stated that if decks require certain things, retaining walls should require them as well. He said such legislation for retaining walls is well within the Council's ability. He added it Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 is the Council's ability and responsibility to maintain neighborly relations and the code should help encourage friendly neighborly relations. Councilmember Stigney replied that decks do require railings, and using the same analogy toward retaining walls will require too many things. Mr. Amundsen said his point is that the Council does legislate safety issues. Mayor Marty said he would like to table the discussion and have Community Development Director Ericson, City Attorney Riggs, and the Planning Commission take another look at the code. Councilmember Thomas said sending this to the Planning Commission is too much, that Staff should be able to complete changes. Councilmember Gunn said she likes Councilmember Thomas' suggested amendment. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To postpone action on the Adoption of Ordinance 773, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Relating to Landscaping, Fences and Retaining Walls, until the July 24, 2006 meeting Councilmember Flaherty asked if July 10 would allow enough time, Community Development Director Ericson responded the last meeting in July will be sufficient. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. B. Public Hearing to Consider a Rezoning Request Submitted by Integra Homes Relating to the Properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the West Half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3, Medium Density Residential Community Development Director Ericson explained to the Council that Ron Lillestrand requests approval of re -zoning for the site of a proposed townhome development. He stated the development originally entailed 21 town home units and that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request based on several factors, including density, privacy issues, an impact on adjoining properties, and lack of guest parking. Director Ericson stated that the developers have re -submitted a re -development application for a simple re -zoning request. He stated the developers have reduced the density to 19 units, reconfigured the layout of the town homes, added guest parking, and changed the width and internal configuration of the driveways. Director Ericson explained the Planning Commission had difficulty with the application because they questioned if it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the County Road 10 corridor and the City's vision of how the area should be redeveloped. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 Director Ericson said the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as mixed -use, Planned Unit Development, within which housing is indicated as a component. He stated the proposed development project is consistent with such a mixed -use designation. Director Ericson said a concern is the project is due to a remaining PUD area that could no longer be used if the town home project would go forward. He said the Planning Commission felt the townhouse project was not what the City was looking for and was not consistent with the Planning Commission and City's vision for the area. He said the resolution attached recommends denial. Director Ericson said the Planning Commission is requesting that the City authorize a market analysis of the property if the re -zoning is denied. He said that the Planning Commission considered other potential uses of the property, and considering traffic on the corridor, determined the town home project is not what they felt should go on the property. Director Ericson said a notice of a public hearing was sent out to property owners within 350 feet. He said that while the Planning Commission is recommending denial, Staff feels the project is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the City Council has discretion regarding re -zoning. He advised that the Council has to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan, but it is the Council's discretion to determine what is or is not consistent. He said the ordinance could be presented at the next meeting, but if the Council does not believe it is justified, a resolution for denial will be presented at the July 10, 2006 Council meeting. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Donna Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, said she does not want the re -zoning. She said traffic on Groveland Road and Sherwood Road is horrible and she does not support the project. Sandy Dewing, 2816 Sherwood Road, said a lot of traffic travels on Groveland Road and a lot of police are on the road. She said it is a residential area and she is impressed with the quality of the area. She said she is concerned that town homes will degrade the neighborhood and congest the roads. She asked where the traffic will go and that there are a lot of people going into a small area. She said she likes having some space, and said she is opposed to having town homes on the particular spot. She said that she is not against town homes, she is against having a much denser zoning area. She said her neighborhood will likely pick up some traffic from Medtronic and asked then what her options would be. Brian Bourassa, representing Intergra Homes, presented to the Council his vision of the town home development and spoke of the traffic impact. He said that the Staff report is quite thorough and that Integra reacted to public and Staff comments and have hopefully taken into account their comments. He said the two -unit reduction was significant to re -position units, reduce the number of people residing at the development, and add parking. He said compared to the last layout, there are many more side -yards to side -yards. Mounds View City Council Regular MeetinE June 26, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Bourassa stated that there was early consideration about an access road onto Groveland Road, but that plan has not gone forward. Ile said the only access points proposed are private connections granted to allow future access into the properties on the east and west, which are potentially commercial developments. He reiterated that no access points would be on Groveland Road or Sherwood Road. Mr. Bourassa explained there was some consideration about the PUD at the Planning Commission meetings. He said they investigated numerous options after the first option was turned own, and because of the positioning of these parcels, determined townhouses would be better because there was not much demand for retail or commercial businesses expressed for the site. He added that a mid -block right -in, right -out access would not lend itself well to businesses. He said there were some meetings between Integra and property owners and the PUD would not be viable. Mr. Bourassa said the town homes would be owner -occupied, and the benefits of the Association will add to the neighborhood. He said the Association would be the point of contact for any issues. He explained town homes are the best market demand in this area, and described the units as 1400 —1600 square feet with two car garages. He stated some would be split -entries, along with a variety of housing options. He presented exhibits of the detached town homes to the Council. Councilmember Gunn asked about the price of the town homes, and Mr. Bourassa replied between $225,000 and $275,000. Ms. Meyer stated that Groveland Road and Red Oak Drive are major thoroughfares, and that she believes people will cut across the street and across County Road J to the town homes, and that there will be increased traffic because of the development. She said that without sidewalks in the area, it is a potential hazard for children walking to the parks. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Councilmember Flaherty stated at the last meeting a resident commented that less than desirable people may move in to such a development. He stated he does not believe owner -occupied homes would attract those types of people and that they will increase the market value of the area substantially. Councilmember Flaherty said in the Staff report, it was noted that this type housing is under- represented in the City and asked if the Harsted town homes were factored in. He asked if once those are done, would there still be a lack of town home housing. Community Development Director Ericson responded that he could not answer the question without further research. Councilmember Flaherty said he wants to see the rendering of the town homes and said it may help the residents. He said in terms of the traffic, particularly high-speed traffic, that the speed limit is 30 mph on Groveland Road, Red Oak Drive, etc. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting PaLye 8 Ms. Meyer replied that the traffic moves much faster, regardless of the low speed limit. Councilmember Flaherty said it should be brought to police attention. Ms. Dewing said the police are present, but they cannot patrol it all the time and traffic is very fast. Councilmember Flaherty said he would like to see more elevations and is not convinced one way or another. Councilmember Gunn stated she is leaning toward the approval of the rezoning because since she has sat on boards in the past, she knows that it was the vision that further north on County Road 10 would be more residential with town homes and scattered small office buildings. She explained that if the re -zoning is not approved, there is the potential that something else could be built on the property generating far more traffic. She stated that no matter what goes in, they will only have access off of County Road 10. She asked if the City would rather see residential or business traffic on the streets. Councilmember Stigney noted that according to the Planning Commission resolution, re -zoning to R3 is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area. He asked what is consistent with Comprehensive Plan for the area and said he is not sure what else would go in there. He asked what the redevelopment expectation for the area is and if commercial zoning is beneficial. He said his concern is what type of development will go in the area if the town homes do not. IIe also noted he does not want to see low -end housing and would also like to see renderings of the proposed development. Director Ericson stated that on a daily basis, town homes generate fewer trips daily than a single- family home would and significantly less traffic than an office building or business. IIe said other uses of the property would generate more traffic than the town homes. Councilmember Thomas stated she appreciates the Staff report and opportunity to discuss the issue before any decisions are made. She said the problem she has is that when the Commission makes a recommendation, the Council should have a compelling reason to overturn it. She said this development may be the best shot the City has to plan for the area, and said she wants to get more information and have a specific reason to re -zone. She said she looks forward to working with Staff on this project. Councilmember Gunn asked how long ago the areas in question were zoned. Community Development Director Ericson replied that the zoning, as presented, has been that way for decades. He said the last property to be re -zoned was the Johnson property when it was re -zoned to R-O, and otherwise, the properties are reflective of historical zoning from a significant amount of time ago. Director Ericson said the designation with the Comprehensive Plan is relatively new, adopted in 2001 or 2002. He said the basis for the mixed -use designation in the area was the reflection of the desire to have redevelopment occur, and the mixed -use provided the most flexibility for the City since at the time there was no clear vision. Councilmember Gunn asked about the B-3 property, and Director Ericson said it is a former commercial property and retains the commercial designation. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 Mayor Marty noted that the Staff report was very thorough and referred to the surrounding area as being single-family residential. He said while an enhanced market value is desirable, the higher density would be detrimental to the surrounding area. He said during the Planning Commission public hearings, only one individual spoke in favor of the development, a Spring Lake Park resident. He pointed out that based on comments at the meetings, residents' underlying concern was that development was not what was originally intended when it was designate a mixed -use area, and that approval would eliminate the ability for a comprehensive block -wide project. Mayor Marty explained that a year ago when Integra first approached the City, they were unable to purchase the adjoining properties. He said it is the City's hope to develop the entire area rather than taking a chunk out of the middle. IIe noted that in their summary, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously that the Council authorize a study of the area for a better use for the land. He pointed out that the Planning Commission and residents believe there is a better use than the town home development. Mayor Marty said, as stated earlier in the EDA meeting, that a feasibility study is more proactive to determine what City wants and what would fit in to the area. Ile said instead of being reactive to certain projects, the City needs to be proactive to determine the best use for land. Mayor Marty added that at present, he is not convinced that reducing density from 21 to 19 units is a big change, regardless of the re -alignment of the units. He stated he is not convinced the town home project is the best use for the area and cannot approve re -zoning. Mayor Marty said the Council can override Planning Commission recommendations, but there has to be a very strong argument to do so and he has not seen such to date. Councilmember Gunn questioned what the original intent was for the area, considering it was continually mentioned. Community Development Director Ericson said there is a difference of opinion regarding the original intent, and there is nothing in writing specifying the exact nature of the original intent. He said that some people remember it being commercially intended, others believe it was to be more residential. He said the Planning Commission has taken the opinion that the town home development is not what was originally intended. Councilmember Flaherty said he is not yet ready to disregard the development. He said he wants to see the proposal first. He agreed that there must be extenuating circumstances to go against the recommendation of the Planning Commission, but he is not ready to dismiss it. Councilmember Gun said she believes the Council needs more details, planning, and exact renderings before they make a decision. Councilmember Thomas stated it would help to have a discussion about "if not this, then what." She said there is only a certain amount of detail the property owners can provide at this point and if town homes are not what are desired for the area, the Council needs to decide what the original Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 intent is. She said if the decision is made to go in a different direction, they need to determine what direction to go. Mayor Marty said he believes the EDC could look it over and discuss what the best use might be. He said the Planning Commission denied the town home development, and should consider what the best use of the property is. He said the EDC, Planning Commission, City Council, and Staff should discuss what the best use for the area would be. Mr. Brouassa addressed "if not this, then what," question and replied it is his thought that perhaps the Planning Commission was listening to the residents and reacting to comments desiring a commercial building. He said residents would like something commercial and that he tried to explain that they did try to meet with other property owners and a consolidation was not possible. He said an effort was made to consolidate the parcels, but it could not happen, and a commercial building in this area would be very difficult. Mr. Brouassa said that in the Staff Report, the question is asked if the development follows the Comprehensive Plan. He said he believes it does follow the Comprehensive Plan because it allows for linkages for other developments. He said there was no intention to go for a PUD with this submittal, and brought up the points that they were trying to work within the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Stigney said that large retail will not go in to such an area. He said another gas station could go in, another drugstore, or something else that is more undesirable. IIe said he does not believe office buildings will work and asked what other possible options existed. He said if Integra could come up with a good plan, he would consider it. Ms. Meyer said that traffic flow needs to be considered. Councilmember Stigney replied that anything built in the area will affect traffic flow. Ms. Dewing asked if the Council has to approve anything that will be built in the area. Councilmember Gunn and Councilmember "Thomas replied that if it meets the appropriate zoning code, the Council has no say about what goes in. Mayor Marty said the Council cannot deny a business or homeowner unless there is a very good reason. He explained that if a business complies with all City rules and codes, the Council cannot deny it. Ms. Dewing said that the developers have not been talking to her or her neighbors, because she has not been approached by the developers. She said if she were approached, she would be more involved. Councilmember Thomas replied that the discussions to which Mr. Brouassa was referring were probably between people who owned property the developers hoped to purchase, not with neighbors away from the development. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, asked which neighbors they have talked to and if there are any conflicts of interest between the builders and the Council Members. He asked whom the developers have approached. Mayor Marty said he wanted to ask what property owners were approached, particularly since one property owner said they were not approached. He said that currently, they are discussing potentially rezoning, and that it is not moving forward at this point. Councilmember Gunn asked if the Council could put it on to the work session and do some homework, where it could be discussed in-depth, rather than during the Council meetings. Ms. Meyer said he does not want to have to come back again, and that he has made it clear that they do not want it to be rezoned. IIe said that there was already a house torn down, Bourassa replied it was not part of their property. Mayor Marty asked if the issue could be put on the August work session, but Community Development Director Ericson urged the Council to not draw the discussion out longer than necessary. He said the residents do not want to keep coming back. He said that if the Council feels certain things need to come back to them, they could request it, but urged the Council to not put it off further. IIe said the developer would like to have a decision one way or another. Mayor Marty asked if the development will be 2-story units, Brouassa replied they will be 1.5 — 2 stories. Mayor Marty asked the Council if they wanted to discuss it at the next work session, and Councilmember Stigney replied he wants to see what the developers are proposing. Mr. Meyer said that as long as a road is not built, he would be okay with the Development. Director Ericson said that the developers would have to come back to the City with their plan for roads and anything that deviated significantly from the original plan would probably not be approved. IIe explained that this is a rezoning request, and that the developers would still have to go through a couple steps before any development would be approved. IIe said that it is clear that the residents do not want a street on that corner. IIe said that the Planning Commission would like a more comprehensive development on the area and if the other property is included in the plan, there could be a street. Mr. Meyer asked the Council if they could make an immediate decision regarding the road and the Council replied they would not be making any decisions. Councilmember Thomas said that if the Council decides to rezone, there must be a specific purpose and she would like to have a better idea about what they would see if it were to be rezoned. She said she would like to know the best use for the area. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 Mayor Marty said those issues will be addressed in the marketing plan. Councilmember Thomas replied that she would like to see what the Council decides is their vision for the property and if the town homes support the vision. Councilmember Thomas said she is not comfortable making the call without knowing the overall vision. Mayor Marty said the discussion is better for a work session. Councilmember Thomas added she would prefer a memo from Staff and Mayor Marty agreed that the Council needs to discuss the vision. Councilmember Flaherty said one lot is zoned for commercial right now, and right now, the developers may sell the land to the first commercial business they desire. Councilmember Flaherty said the Council needs to figure out if it wants commercial or residential zoning in the area. Councilmember Thomas made the point that she does not want to deny or approve the zoning presently, but would like to make the decision as soon as possible. Councilmember Gunn suggested the issue be discussed at the July 17 work session and so the decision can be made at the following City Council meeting. Community Development Director Ericson recommended that, because it will extend the timeline, to ask the developer if it is acceptable to wait for a decision. He said it is better to ask if the developer is okay with deferring the decision in case he is not okay waiting. Mr. Brouassa said he would appreciate the consideration at the work session and is willing to wait. Council consensus was reached to defer the issue to the next work session on July 17, 2006. C. Public Hearing Resolution 6857, Consider a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for Midwest Motor Express located at 2169 Mustang Drive Planning Associate Heller stated that two requests are being presented and that Midwest Motor Express enjoys being located in Mounds View and would like to stay. She said they are requesting approval of a CUP to operate as a freight motor terminal. She said this is a housekeeping issue and added that when the building was first built, a CUP was not required, but now it is. Planning Associate Heller explained the property is zoned industrial and motor freight terminals are permitted conditional uses within the zoning. She said the use of the property will not change, traffic will not change, and it will not depreciate surrounding properties. Planning Associate Heller said Midwest Motor Express will add a 10,500 square foot addition, with 24 additional dock doors, which will allow more efficient staging in the warehouse. She said they do not anticipate any additional traffic. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 Planning Associate Heller stated the majority of the parking is asphalt, and adding additional square footage to equal 67 parking stalls is not an issue. Planning Associate Heller explained that the setback would not change and that the parking area would be increased by 75 feet to the north. She added that the north end of the property abuts a mobile home park and there is a large grassy hill separating the properties. She added Staff says it will continue to be an adequate buffer. She said notices were sent to individual homes within 350 feet, and Staff has not heard any feedback. She also added that Midwest Motor Express has contacted Rice Creek Watershed District to inquire if a permit will be needed from them. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Councilmember Flaherty asked if the addition architecture will be consistent with the current building. Mr. Greenstein, of Midwest Motor Express, said the addition will be consistent. Mayor Marty asked about the resolution itself, which states under section three that development plans must be approved by Public Works for drainage. He asked about the Rice Creek Watershed District and pointed out drainage was not stated in the resolution. He asked if any ponding would be required. Planning Associate Heller said she does not know at this point or even if it will require a permit. Councilmember Gunn said her guess is the only impervious space increase would be with the asphalt on the parking lot, and it would not have a large effect. Mayor Marty said a similar situation came up with SYSCO and the Council understands the situation. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6857, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for Midwest Motor Express located at 2169 Mustang Drive Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. D. Continued Public Hearing from June 12, 2006, to consider Resolution 6830 an Off Sale intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for ABC Liquor located at 2840 Highway 10. City Administrator Ulrich said in reviewing the item, Staff found some items, which indicated there were some issues with the business. He said that Staff found the violations indicated were first-time offenses by owner Mr. Xing and ABC liquors and Staff recommends approval of license. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 Mayor Marty re -opened public hearing at 8:53 p.m. Hearing no public input, Mayor Marty closed public hearing at 8:53 p.m. Councilmember Flaherty asked about the City code language stating that a license will not be granted to anyone who has been convicted. City Attorney Riggs said a complaint has been filed and is being prosecuted. Councilmember Flaherty asked what will happen if Mr. Xiong is convicted. City Attorney Riggs said the license will then come back to Council for suspension or revocation. Councilmember Flaherty explained that he believes Mr. Xiong understands the severity of not asking for identification. Councilmember Flaherty said he does not believe the Council should take the man's livelihood away after a first offense. He said he approves of license and monitoring Mr. Xiong. Councilmember Thomas said she is willing to go ahead with the license at this point, but if the conviction takes place, there needs to be a further discussion about consequences. She noted the City prides itself on maintaining such rules, and this is not the only type of business they need to monitor. She said the criminal case against Mr. Xiong needs to be watched very carefully, particularly because a minor was involved. Mayor Marty said that from reading the Staff report and police reports, what swayed him was a statement from the officer that when he was talking to Mr. Xiong about the specific incident and Mr. Xiong stated he sold alcohol to the suspect several times and was not too worried about the age of the minor. Mayor Marty said that the City has received many complaints that it is easy for minors to buy alcohol from ABC Liquors. IIe said that according to documentation, the Police Department is aware of problems in the store. Mayor Marty said that for non -willful violation, it is appropriate to initiate a license revocation. He said that at this point, he sees the violation as non -willful, Mr. Xiong has not been convicted, and that the violation is the first documented incident. Mayor Marty said he would like a 6- month probationary period for the license and if there are no more incidents, then the probationary period is over. Councilmember Thomas said she is not sure how a probationary license would work and that the Council has the right at any time to revoke a liquor license. She added she would not mind stating the Council will be monitoring the situation closely. City Administrator Ulrich said he agrees with Councilmember Thomas' points, that if there is a conviction or other violations, the City would consider revocation of the license. Mayor Marty agreed with the suggestion and would like to make sure Mr. Xiong realizes the City takes the issue very seriously. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 15 City Attorney Riggs said if there is a violation at any time, the Council can suspend or revoke the license and putting Mr. Xiong on notice will not hurt. MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6830 an Off Sale intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for ABC Liquor located at 2840 Highway 10. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. E. Continued Public Hearing from June 12, 2006, to consider Resolution 6833 an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Robert's Sports Bar and Entertainment located at 2400 County Road H2 City Administrator Ulrich stated this item was postponed from the June 12t" meetings, when several residents voice specific complaints about the operation including noise and trash. He said they attached police reports to the Staff report. IIe stated the owner of Robert's Sports Bar and Entertainment is here to address complaints. Mayor Marty re -opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. Mr. Hutchinson, the attorney for Mr. Waste, the owner of Robert's, stated they reviewed the Police Department record, and in the last 18 months, there have been 7 noise complaints, 3 of which were anonymous, 5 of which were in 2004, and 3 of which were in 2006. He said before the meeting last month, Mr. Waste was not aware of the noise complaints. Mr. Hutchinson stated it is the nature of the nightclub that there will be noise around the bar and in the street. He said Mr. Waste will do everything he can to be treat his neighbors well. He said some of the complaints were that the doors were left open and Mr. Waste and the nightclub managers have addressed the issue. Mr. Hutchinson added that the traffic noise could be coming from many different places, not necessarily Robert's. IIe said that Robert's does not condone the behavior, that the bar has a good relationship with the Police Department. He said he does not believe anyone has been tagged for excessive noise in or directly outside the lot. Mr. Hutchinson stated the nightclub has been there for 20-30 years, and to some extent, there will always be some noise associated. He said Mr. Waste will do his best to be courteous, and that there have not been an inordinate number of police calls. Mr. Iutchinson said it is not a "biker bar," and that motorcyclists patronize several bars in the area. Sarah Mears, 5292 Edgewood Drive, stated she does not care about the motorcycle noise. She said her concern is the music and that even with the doors in the bar closed and in their house shut, that they can hear the noise. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 16 Ms. Mears also stated her concern that a man was drunk in her front yard and asked why he was not refused alcohol at the bar before he got to that point. She voiced her concern about trash in her back yard including a plastic bun rack that was thrown over her fence last year. Ms. Mears stated she and her husband were aware they moved in behind a bar and that she called the police before moving in and was informed there were no noise complaints. She stated her main concern was the trash and beer bottles in her yard where her children play Ms. Amundsen asked about the noise issues, and said she has contacted Fridley, whose Police Department has noise ordinances stating maximum decibel levels. She asked if Mounds View has a decibel limit in an ordinance and asked if that is something that should be discussed. Sean Mears, 5292 Edgewood Drive, said that he was not aware until tonight that there have been police reports filed. He said he is disappointed that the Police Department did not provide the adequate information about the police reports. He commended Robert's that the bar noise has gone down and that the doors have been closed in the past few weeks, and that he takes it as a sign that some things are being done to address the neighbors' complaints. Mr. Mears stated that on a Sunday, a band was performing, and that they could hear everything that was being said. He asked at what point is loud too loud. He said that he understands he lives next to a bar, but that the noise is too much. IIe said all he is asking is the volume is turned down and the doors remain closed. Cindy Hilger, 5287 Edgewood Drive, agreed that over the last two weeks, the noise level has come down significantly. She said that a band's bass and the noise from the bar cannot be compared to a dog barking in the middle of the afternoon. She stated she is voicing her concern about the noise and liked the decibel level suggestion. She said the police have been called since the meetings two weeks ago, and that one night was particularly bad. Wayne Joelberg, 5287 Edgewood Drive, stated that a woman on the City Council used to live on Edgewood Drive and had a meeting with Robert's. Ile said that a wall was proposed to hold down the noise and that he would like to see a real noise barrier put in. He said he is sure Robert's can afford it Jeff Hilger, 5287 Edgewood Drive, stated that the noise is loud Thursday through Sunday. He said he would like to reiterate that the noise is a huge problem and keeps him awake at night. IIe said after the bar closes the noise from the motorcycles and yelling wakes him up. Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. Councilmember Thomas stated the reason things like this come back for renewal is so residents have these opportunities to speak. She said the bar can control the noise level of the music and stated she would like to see a meeting between the City and the bar owner. She said it would be appropriate to make sure the bar owner was following through with issues that are within his power. She noted her expectation is that the bar owner will do what he can within his power. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 17 Councilmember Flaherty said the hearing was postponed to give Mr. Waste an opportunity to address his neighbors' concerns. IIe stated he agrees with Councilmember Thomas that the liquor license should not be denied. IIe added he believes the public hearing is a good opportunity for Mr. Waste to address his neighbors' concerns. Mr. Waste replied that he had not done much to reduce the noise level in the last two weeks, but has made sure the doors are closed. Mr. Hutchinson added that closing the doors makes a big difference in the noise level and that Robert's management is attempting to react to the complaints appropriately. Mr. Joelberg said he has called the Police Department several times, but did not realize he could call 911 to report problems. He stated he had gotten the "run-around" from the Police Department. Mr. Hilger stated at the last meeting they asked the Police Chief to research the complaints and stated that he also did not know he was supposed to dial 911. Mayor Marty stated all of the police complaints all of the police complaints were available for review at the Council meeting. IIe stated he met with Mr. Waste during a similar situation and said Mr. Waste made several improvements, including planting bushes in front of the building. Mayor Marty stated he does not recall any complaints at the Council level and noted that the residents now know how to contact the police. He stated Mr. Waste has a history of stepping up to make improvements to the establishments. He noted the liquor license renewal process is in place so residents can speak to such issues. Mayor Marty stated he like Ms. Amundsen's idea about the decibel meter. He said the noise ordinance does specify a decibel level within a certain amount of feet. Councilmember Thomas stated she believes it is an audible range limit, not a decibel limit, and that there are legal issues surrounding decibel levels. Mayor Marty suggested said the Council determine if something more needs to be done and that it be discussed at a later date. IIe stated he does not believe in holding up the license. Councilmember Flaherty added that a decibel reading may help Robert's determine the appropriate volume of music. Councilmember Flaherty said a decibel level may help Robert's to determine the appropriate volume of the music. Mr. Joelberg stated they are not trying to stop the license, but they want the noise quieted and do not believe there should be a problem doing so. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 18 Ms. Amundsen clarified that her neighboring business' decibel meter was used, and that Fridley has a decibel that is allowed. She clarified that the business voluntarily tested their decibels and reduced the noise. Mayor Marty suggested that Mr. Waste work with the Police Department to correct such issues and applauded Mr. Waste on his willingness to address the issues. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6833 an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Robert's Sports Bar and Entertainment located at 2400 County Road H2. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. F. Resolution 6852 Approving Rotary Club Membership. City Administrator Ulrich stated this item was discussed at the June 5"' City Council work session. He stated it was the consensus of the Council to invite the president of the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club, Mr. George Winiecki, to a Council meeting to introduce himself, answer questions, and explain the benefits of the Rotary membership. Mr. Winiecki presented the Council with information about the Rotary Club. He explained Rotary is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders and that members of club are involved in all aspects of business and government. He said they have mayors, real- estate developers, Council members, school superintendents, principals, and many private and public sector members. Mr. Winiecki stated the Rotary Club provides community and humanitarian services, promotes high ethical standards and promotes peace throughout the world. IIe explained that there are many rotary clubs throughout the world. Mr. Winiecki said that the Rotary Club has made several contributions throughout the area. IIe stated for example, that the club in Mounds View returns the funds they raise back into the community. He noted that $600 was contributed to a Mounds View Park, that they contributed to a youth latch -key program through Community Partners to Youth latchkey program in, and also gave money to the Northwest Youth and Family Service. Mr. Winiecki said the club gives to the local food shelf. IIe said they used to distribute food directly to the citizens, but that working with the food shelf is more efficient. IIe said they have a large Easter egg hunt which includes 700-800 children. Mr. Winiecki stated the explained that they contribute to CEAF, the Community Emergency Assistance Fund, which assists people who have needs for emergency money. IIe stated they hold people accountable. IIe explained that they also organize a carnival for children who have Spina bifida. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 19 Mr. Winiecki stated that occasionally they send young women and men from Irondale to a leadership camp and provide scholarships to high school students. He said they have contributed to the Irondale choir and donated to the Mounds View library. IIe also noted they contributed to the Mounds View Public School's caravan that has a handicapped lift, which for a nominal fee, is available for anyone in the 621 School District. Mr. Winiecki said there are also activities on the national level, but the bulk of the money raised by their club goes back into the local community. IIe said that members vote on where the funds go. He noted several prominent people who are Rotary members. Mr. Winiecki noted that the Bill Gates Foundation donated $25 million dollars, which Rotary matched for a total $50 million. He added that Rotary is the only organization worldwide that has a chair on the United Nations. Mr. Winiecki stated they are not just looking for business or governmental leaders, but also citizens. He stated the club expects a member to be active in the community. Mayor Marty stated he suggested City Administrator Ulrich join the Rotary Club. He said he feels it would be beneficial to the City and City Administrator. Mr. Winiecki said it is good for the community to have someone from the City involved in Rotary. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6852 Approving Rotary Club Membership. Councilmember Stigney commented that the Rotary is a wonderful organization, but questioned whether the City should fund the membership for City Administrator Ulrich. He said he does not support the City paying for the membership. Councilmember Thomas stated that as long as the City benefits from the Rotary Club she supports the membership. She said if the time comes that the Administrator is not an active member, then the City should no longer fund them membership. Mayor Marty pointed out to City Administrator Ulrich that there are volunteer opportunities after hours. Councilmember Flaherty asked if the membership, should it be approved, is for the City of Mounds View not for City Administrator Ulrich personally. Mayor Marty stated that it is and asked if there could be an alternate to attend. Mr. Winiecki replied that the international by-laws are being re -written, and an alternate could be designated. Ayes — 4 Nays — I (Stigney) Motion carried. Mr. Winiecki said the goal is that the dues and bulk of income is put back into the City. M. Resolution 6895 Approving a Tobacco -Free Park Policy Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 20 Public Works Director Lee said this was reviewed at a work session and it was recommended it come back to the Council. He mentioned the exception areas, such as designated smoking areas at the Community Center, and individual cars in parking lots in City parking lots. Councilmember Stigney asked where the designated smoking areas at the Community Center are located. Christina Ford, representative of the Youth Smoke Free Coalition, asked for one designated area away from the children's area and away from the front door. Councilmember Stigney asked if the area would be inside or outside. Director Lee replied that the current area is on the north side of the building, near the main entrance off of Bronson Avenue. The Community Center Staff asked that it be moved away from the daycare. Director Lee responded that two years ago they poured concrete slabs and added a picnic table to remove smokers from the main entrance, but they could look for alternative areas. Mayor Marty asked if there is another entrance that could be accommodating. Director Lee said there are two available spots, and now they are asking for both to be eliminated. Councilmember Gunn said the smoking is used mostly during evening events, when the daycare is not open. She said the playground is a significant distance from the back door, and that the only alternative is the front door, which is a poor choice. Councilmember Stigney asked about the other exception regarding the definition "adjacent" to the public park. Director Lee stated it would be vehicles parked on the street adjacent to the public park since not all parks have parking areas. Councilmember Gunn asked for changes to the language. Councilmember Thomas said she cannot support a "tobacco -free" policy and she is uncomfortable with the "smoke -free" policy. Mayor Marty said he can understand that youth clubs and buildings are tobacco free, but that citizens believe the City is putting too many restrictions on smoking. Mayor Marty stated he said he agrees with Councilmember Thomas that "smoke -free" is okay. He said he likes other Cities' ordinances that discuss youth activities, and would like to stress that there is no use around children. Director Lee stated that a smoke -free rather than tobacco -free policy would require significant signage policies. Mayor Marty added he has been looking for "tobacco free" signs in other cities, but hasn't seen any. Councilmember Flaherty stated a tobacco -free policy will be a voluntary compliance and there will be no enforcement or penalty for using tobacco. He said it is more a symbolic issue than anything else. Cindy Palm, 2266 Terrace View, reiterated that it is an empowering tool for residents, and that it gives citizens power to make sure tobacco is not used. She said it will help citizens ask others to Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 21 not smoke. She said it is self-regulating and whether it is "smoke -free, or "tobacco -free," doesn't matter. She said tobacco does not belong in City parks. MOTION/SECOND: GiTNN/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6895 Approving a Tobacco -Free Park Policy. Councilmember Thomas said she does not believe the difference between "tobacco free," and "smoke free" is a matter of semantics and it does infringe on personal freedoms. She said that the City's responsibilities are not to deem what is appropriate for children. She believes a smoke -free policy protects health and safety and that is the City responsibility, and she is even okay with going with a smoke -free ordinance. Councilmember Flaherty said he is okay with a smoke -free or tobacco -free sign, but would not agree with an ordinance. Commissioner Stigney said he believes it is an effort to bring an awareness to the makers of the tobacco that it should be done. He said it is an awareness -oriented policy, not an enforcement policy, and supports anything that encourages children not to smoke. Mayor Marty stated he agrees that City buildings be smoke free, and understands the role model aspect, and that he is against smoking around children or children's activities. He stated that he has a problem with over -regulation based on what he has heard from residents about restricting outside settings. Mayor Marty stated he understands the intent of the policy, but does not think people should be restricted from smoking outside. He stated it is legal to smoke and it is not the City's place to make it illegal. Ayes — 3 Nays — 2 (Thomas, Marty) Motion carried. CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:00 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY to continue the City Council meeting until 10:45 p.m. Aye — 5 Nay — 0 Motion carried. G. Resolution 6860 Approving Change Orders No. 27 through 34 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project Public Works Director Lee stated that the change orders refer to various items included in the City Hall project. He pointed out that Staff has been working with the consultant, and the total amount of change orders, except for one, will bring up total amount to $147,150, which will be the maximum change orders for the project. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting June 26, 2006 Page 22 Director Lee said the change does include the addition of the handicapped power door. He pointed out there may be issues the Council will discuss. He added that the consultant would meet with the Council to go over any issues and questions. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6860 Approving Change Orders No. 27 through 34 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project Councilmember Flaherty brought up Change Order 927 and asked if the contractor missed that they had to tie the walls together. Director Lee stated they did miss some areas. Councilmember Flaherty said he believes it should have been in original bid. He said that #34 should have been foreseen as well. Mayor Marty stated his is not happy with such change orders and asked if the engineers and consultants could be held responsible. Councilmember Stigney agreed with Mayor Marty. He asked if the handicap access will be an additional $6000. Public Works Director Lee stated the old ones were demoed, and the new handicap access controls would be $6000. He stated that to re -install the old doors would have cost more. Mayor Marty stated he wants the handicap access controls back so that City Hall is accessible. Director Lee responded that the final total may be less than $6000. Councilmember Thomas stated that the issue wasn't to go back to get the doors, but that it was an unacceptable design from the beginning, that the handicapped doors should not have been removed. Mayor Marty commented that the "MV" is back in the Council Chambers, but asked if the "City of Mounds View" will be added. Public Works Director Lee stated the "MV" is back on a temporary basis, and different letters have been ordered. Mayor Marty stated he does not want to buy new ones. City Administrator Ulrich stated it is the old logo that was used and that a new logo will go in the back. Mayor Marty stated he does not know why it was changed. City Administrator Ulrich stated it has already been ordered. Councilmember Stigney asked if there would be a change order for the electrical box to be corrected, and Public Works Director Lee responded that there would be no change order and that the company would fix the box. Councilmember Stigney also asked about the electrical cord on the floor. Councilmember Stigney stated he believes this money is wasted and does not support it. Aye — 5 Nay — I (Stigney) Motion carried. H. Resolution 6866 Including Various Items in the Feasibility Report for the Street and Utility Improvement Program / Public Informational Meeting Update Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting _ Page 23 Public Works Director Lee stated that on May 22, the Council authorized a feasibility report for street improvement program. He stated the City wanted to meet with residents to determine issues and concerns. He said an informational meeting was held on June 13 and about 50 people attended. He said one of the items had several mini -topics and a feedback form. Director Lee said street design and curbing was one of the main issues discussed. He said 10 of 14 feedback forms touched on street design and curbing, that 9 of 10 were in favor, and 7 indicated they would go along with the project. He added that only one person was against the project. Director Lee said 10 of the 11 were opposed to public walkways. He said the City does have a trail way plan and trail way advocacy group that submitted a report in 1992. He stated Staff is recommending that these are included in the feasibility report to identify issues surrounding providing pedestrian corridors in the areas and the cost associated with them. Director Lee stated another issue is mailbox grouping. He said the City has an ordinance that when streets are re -done, the mailboxes be grouped. He said of the 14 feedback forms submitted, four of them commented on the mailbox grouping and two were opposed, two were indifferent. Director Lee said that one of the main issues is traffic volumes and speed in the area. IIe said it was nearly unanimous that this was a concern. He said Staff will recommend a proposal for traffic study of the northwest quadrant of the City. IIe stated this will collect data about this part of the City, identify the issues as far as traffic volume and speed, and then provide a list of possible solutions that could be implemented. Director Lee said as to the issue of whether to include the segment of Sherwood Road, Staff recommends sending a survey to property owners on the segment asking if they do or do not want to be included with the project. Director Lee addressed the elimination of the Hillview/Fairchild access to County Road 10 and stated Staff recommends that they continue with the plan and incorporates this into the feasibility report. Director said Staff is recommending the approval of six items to be included in the feasibility report: 1. Street Design Option that was implemented in 2004 which included concrete curbing and gutter; 2. Trail ways as indicated by the City's comprehensive trail way plan; 3. Mailbox grouping as required by City code; 4. Following the County Road 10 improvement plan as adopted in August 2002 indicating the closing of the Hillview/Fairchild access; 5. Including Sherwood Road segments between Long Lake Road and I dgewood Drive only if property owners indicate a desire to be included by a popular vote; 6. Any other items as directed by the City Council. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 24 Councilmember Gunn asked about the rest of Red Oak Drive and stated that there were many people who requested it be done. Director Lee said Red Oak Drive would be somewhat problematic since there have been no surveys of people to the north. He said the projects need to terminate at some point, and that not everything can be one at once. He said in terms of Red Oak Drive, it could become disjointed and it will be determined by the study. Councilmember Gunn asked about the infrastructure that will be redone, and why the portion of Sherwood Road will be excluded. Director Lee responded that a televising of the systems is being done currently and if it is not included in the current project, it will be added to another project 3-5 years down the road. Director Lee said the segment along Sherwood Road will be a main haul road for the project and it made sense to include it in the project. Councilmember Thomas was under the impression that all seven areas of infrastructure have been televised. Public Works Director Lee said it was done 7 years ago and it will be re - televised, along with the storm sewer. Mayor Marty stated he is okay with Red Oak Drive not being included in the project, and people will see the new road and become more excited about having theirs redone. Councilmember Thomas asked about the width of the street, and Director Lee said that will be 28 feet curb to curb. IIe said within the study area, streets are about 28 feet curb -to -curb, if not a bit wider. Mayor Marty asked if they will be slightly narrower and Director Lee replied that yes they would be slightly narrower and that in the 2004 project, there was a slight decrease in width. Councilmember Stigney asked about curbing and the costs difference in the barrier curb if it was made from bituminous rather than concrete. IIe asked Public Works Director Lee if he ever presented the cost difference to the citizens. Director Lee stated there is not a surmountable bituminous curb option, and the cost difference would be about the same, if there were, he said the cost is negligible. Councilmember Stigney asked about the cost of a bituminous -lipped curb versus the concrete barrier curb. Director Lee stated the cost difference is negligible and there is no option for a bituminous lipped curb. Mayor Marty asked about the difference in costs and Director Lee responded there is no difference in costs between bituminous -lipped curbs or a bituminous barrier curb. He stated building the "lip" is probably not an option because contractors will not build it. He added that most cities are not going with bituminous curbs. Councilmember Stigney asked if the cost difference between the bituminous "lip" curb and concrete barrier curb is $186. Director Lee stated that most bituminous "lip" curbs are either buried under soil or have been shaved off over the years by snowplows etc. Councilmember Stigney stated he questions the difference in costs. Director Lee said the total project difference in cost is $122,000. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 25 Mr. Amundsen stated he did some research and the contractor indicated they can always raise the edge of the "shoe" and roll it somewhat with their machinery, but will have to build the back of the curb with an extra pass. IIe stated he cannot believe that two passes will cost the same as one. Mr. Amundsen stated he had heard that citizens are frustrated with traffic patterns, and in South Minneapolis, several options were used to divert traffic patterns from the neighborhoods. He recommended that Mounds View look into such solutions. Councilmember Thomas stated the difficulty of shifting the traffic pattern is that some cars will go through other peoples' roads. She stated that if Red Oak Drive is blocked, cars will go to Groveland Road and that the number of cars will not be changed, they will just go somewhere else. She added there is a major thoroughfare and the Council must be cognizant of the problems. Councilmember Thomas stated she believes a study is necessary to determine where to move the traffic. She stated she agrees with Mr. Amundsen and does not believe there is such a small difference in price between bituminous and concrete. Mayor Marty questioned sidewalks and trail ways and asked what it will cost to include those in the feasibility report. Director Lee responded it would probably cost several thousand dollars. Mayor Marty said in the past, there was a comprehensive trail way map. He added that traffic is not diminishing, it is increasing. He said having an avenue for people to walk and bike should be considered in the feasibility report. Councilmember Gunn said most neighborhoods do not want sidewalks, and that the Council should not consider it. Director Lee said that it could be a matter of just striping the road as was suggested in the 1992 report. Councilmember Thomas said her concern is that if they present something the neighborhood does not want, that they will say "no" to the entire project. She said she would prefer to give the citizens what they asked for. Councilmember Flaherty said he agrees with Councilmember Thomas that sidewalks were off the table. IIe said the only issue he remembers was the question of bituminous versus concrete curbs. Councilmember Stigney asked about closing the access from Fairchild Avenue to County Road 10, and about the survey results. Director Lee responded that there was not a survey taken, and there were no comments regarding Fairchild Avenue to County Road 10 on the comment forms. Councilmember Thomas said she recalled things written in on the feedback form regarding closing Fairchild to County 10. Councilmember Stigney said he believes they should talk to residents first. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 26 Public Works Director Lee noted that in terms of elimination of the Hillview/Fairchild access t there were extensive meetings when it was decided upon and he is proposing staying with what was agreed upon. Mayor Marty stated they are striking which was the consensus of the Council. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAI-IERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6866 Including Various Items in the Feasibility Report for the Street and Utility Improvement Program / Public Informational Meeting Update as amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. I. Resolution 6853 Authorizing the Contract for Architectural Services for the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Mounds View Community Center City Administrator Ulrich stated that on June 5, 2006, the City Council at a work session reviewed the proposed improvements to the Mounds View Community Center, which included concept and development level plans. Administrator Ulrich stated that the Mounds View Community Center Task Force presented the initial report to the City Council on March 6, 2006 and based on that report, the Council acted to hire DSGW Architects, Inc., to conduct a study of the task force recommendations. Administrator Ulrich explained that the architect worked with City to refine the concepts, to make additional recommendations, and to develop a cost estimate for the proposed improvement, estimated at $600,000. Administrator Ulrich added that there are several funding sources; including Special Projects Fund, Park Dedication Fund, Internal loans with general tax levy, Internal loans repaid with increased room rentals and membership fees and Capital bonds. Administrator Ulrich stated market feasibility was discussed briefly, and ultimately the first source would be funding the proposed improvements with internal loans paid back through rentals and fees generated by the facility. He said that it was the anticipation of the Community Center Task Force that memberships revenues could be increase with several different membership opportunities. Financial Director Beer had included spreadsheets with different levels of memberships and what revenues those would bring in. He said the break-even point is about 400 memberships of each type for a total of 1200 memberships. He said that if no memberships were sold, the City would run a deficit of $190,000. He stated with the status quo, the City contributes $47,000 annually to the Community Center operation in addition to the budget for $142,000. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 27 Administrator Ulrich said it is strongly recommended the City contract for the preparation of a market feasibility study. He stated that the firm Maxfield Research, Inc. would charge $7,000 for such service. He also suggested doing a survey of residents, which was not included in $7,000 quote. Administrator Ulrich stated received a quote from Anderson Niebuhr and Associates, which has done work for various locations who recommend the City survey sample of 400 residents, which would cost $28,000. City Administrator stated he asked about reducing the cost, and a 300- person sample would bring the total down to $23,900 and sampling 200 would reduce the cost to $22,000. Administrator Ulrich stated Staff recommends the market study, and based on the results, the scope of the project may be changed. He said the costs to do plans and specs would cost around $36,000, which is $27,000 for plans and $9,000 for project supervision. Mayor Marty asked about the community survey and how much it cost the City to conduct it. City Administrator Ulrich said it cost around $11,000. Councilmember Thomas said the Council has discussed the issue extensively, and Councilmember Stigney has asked for market study. She said it can't hurt to have information however the cost of the survey is ridiculous. She said the City can get feedback information itself for a much less significant cost. Councilmember Thomas said the market study is necessary and that she thinks the Council should go ahead. Councilmember Flaherty stated that the more he considers the project, $600,000 is a lot of money. He said he is not even sure he is ready to go as far as a market study. He said he would like it to go back to a work session one last time to determine if there are any other possibilities, but said he would like to exhaust all avenues before the money is spent. Councilmember Flaherty said the committee was not a trained market study committee, but that before money is put into a study, it warrants further discussion. Councilmember Thomas said the City is losing $50,000 a year on the space. She said she would like to know what Councilmember Flaherty would like to accomplish that hasn't been already discussed. Councilmember Flaherty responded he does not know what would come out of it. Councilmember Thomas said it comes down to pulling the trigger and getting things done. Councilmember Flaherty asked if there is consensus if a fitness center is the best option. Councilmember Thomas replied that a market study will help determine if it is. Councilmember Stigney commented that the task force has given this recommendation. He said that selling 400 each of the memberships will only pay for the original construction costs and that the Council is not paying attention to what is going on. Councilmember Stigney said a market study needs to be done and said the survey could happen through the election in November. He said he does not believe a fitness center is a fit and that will not make any money. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 28 David Jahnke1 said that he agrees that a fitness center is a die-hard option. He said he has not talked to anyone who believes a fitness center is needed. He questions spending $600,000 on a City -run fitness center. IIe said he is opposed to the City saying they can make money with the fitness center. He said postponing it and asking residents for feedback is his preference. CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:45 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To extend the City Council meeting until the agenda is finished. Councilmember Flaherty asked that the meeting be postponed after this item because at the end of meetings, things are rushed. IIe said either more meetings need to happen or shorter agendas. He feels that the things farther down on the agenda do not get due diligence. Mayor ,Councilmember Thomas, Councilmember Gunn, and Councilmember Flaherty stated their opinion that the meeting should continue until finished. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mayor Marty said he spoke with City Administrator Ulrich about it and agreed about the feasibility report. He stated the feedback he has gotten is that residents are questioning the exercise center. He stated there are fitness centers in the area and questioned the City's fitness center's necessity. He added his biggest concern is whether or not the City could get the necessary memberships. Mayor Marty said he asked about the City subsidizing the Community Center and does not want to spend money for the study. He suggested it be put on the ballot as a referendum item to ask the citizens exactly what they want. He said several years ago the Police Department was put on a referendum question and passed. He suggested between now and the election, that the City put out RFPs to find out what other ideas there are for the building. Councilmember Gunn asked what the RFPs would be for. Mayor Marty said something could come in that was never discussed before. Councilmember Gunn asked if RFPs have to be something specific. Councilmember Thomas stated that a "general" RFP could not be put out. Mayor Marty said he believes it should go on the ballot to let the citizens decide. Councilmember Gunn asked about the rest of the project, Mayor Marty asked for it to be put on hold. Councilmember Thomas asked what would be put on the ballot and pointed out with the Police Department the City already did the research. She said that the information must be there in order to put it on the ballot. She said even if it was on the ballot, the research must be done first. She added she likes the referendum on the ballot, but that the market analysis must be done first. Mayor Marty stated he just came up with the idea after deciding $28,000 was too much to spend on the research. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 29 Councilmember Stigney asked what should go on the ballot, and said he believes that citizens should be asked if they want a fitness center that will cost "X" numbers of dollars. Councilmember Flaherty asked that this come up for discussion again, and asked if the fitness center really should be the issue the market analysis tackles. Councilmember Flaherty stated he agrees with Councilmember Thomas that the research should be done before a question is put on the ballot. Mayor Marty said they do not have to determine the question tonight. He reiterated that numerous questions have been raised to him regarding the Community Center. He stated he wants to make it citizen -friendly and wants to slow down and take another look at the project. Councilmember Thomas asked if the City has enough information to make a decision and Mayor Marty stated Staff could do the work. Councilmember Thomas asked if there is enough information, and if not, how would the Council get the information. City Administrator Ulrich stated the issue is right for a work session, including discussion about a ballot resolution. He said there could be other quotes for market studies, consideration for RFPs, as well as looking at interim alternatives before a decision is made. Mayor Marty said there is not enough information to ask questions about any alternate uses, and asked if there really is enough information to start the fitness center. IIe stated his concerns about such questions. Councilmember Thomas said there is enough information to warrant a market study. Councilmember Stigney pointed out that the $636,000 is a capital cost and does not include operational costs. IIe asked about the costs to the residents. Mayor Marty stated he does not want to fault the Community Center Task Force and thanked them for their work on the issue. He questioned, however, if the fitness center is the direction in which the City wants to go. Mr. Amundsen said that one of the exercise centers in town took over a year to get to 400 members. He said that he doubts the Community Center will have an easy time drawing people away from the professional exercise center to the public center, and that if it does, it will put the professional center out of business. He stated he believes it should be a banquet and meeting center. Councilmember Thomas responded that all of those things would be maintained; potluck rooms, banquets, and that will be continued regardless of the fitness center. Councilmember Thomas said that without a market study, the City would never know whether or not a fitness center is feasible. She said any other opinion is just a guess. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting June 26, 2006 Page 30 Councilmember Flaherty said at the present time, he is not ready to authorize the contract and resolution. Councilmember Stigney said it will be an awful long work session and stated these types of things should not be on the Council agenda to begin with. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To postpone approval of Resolution 6853 Authorizing the Contract for Architectural Services for the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Mounds View Community Center and discuss it further at the July 17"' work session. Mayor Marty stated that until this meeting, he was ready to approve the expenditures. He said he would rather err. on the side of caution to postpone. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. J. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 775, an Ordinance Vacating an Excess Highway Easement Associated with the Hidden Hollow South Residential Subdivision Community Development Director Ericson explained that this request would vacate an easement that was dedicated to the City in 1976. He stated the City had no problem with the easement, but Ramsey County rejected the plat because of it. Community Development Director Ericson explained the City Council approved the Hidden Hollow South final plat on April 24, 2006. He stated the residential subdivision created six single-family home sites from two deep lots on Wooddale Drive. IIe said that when the plat was brought to Ramsey County for recording, the County Surveyor rejected it due to the presence of a "Highway Easement" at the rear of the lots. He stated the County's policy, as he has learned, is that right of way easements may not persist as easements — they shall either be dedicated as right of way or vacated. He said until one of the two actions is undertaken, the plat cannot be recorded. The effect is to strike the word "highway" from the plat. He said the second reading and public hearing would be at the next City Council meeting. Mayor Marty asked if it would vacate the highway and keep the easements and Director Ericson replied it would. MOTION/SECOND: TIIOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 775, an Ordinance Vacating an Excess Highway Easement associated with the Hidden Hollow South Residential Subdivision. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 31 K. Resolution 6863 Approving the Communications Coordinator to attend the NATOA Conference in Florida City Administrator Ulrich stated this was discussed on June 12t" but failed to achieve the three required votes. He added the issue is being brought back and was revised to reflect a limit of $1000 of City Funding is used. He said the tuition will be paid by the North Suburban Cable Commission. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6863 Approving the Communications Coordinator to attend the NATOA Conference in Florida. Councilmember Stigney stated he does not believe that the City should spend the money to send the Staff member to Florida and that she should explore educational opportunities closer. Mayor Marty said there was more information last time, and there were a number of different sessions offered in Florida that are not offered locally. He said he feels it is a good opportunity for the Staff member because she is the Communications Coordinator and has many additional responsibilities. Mayor Marty said the only change he would put in was the maximum dollar amount, which is spelled out in the resolution Ayes — 4 Nays — I (Stigney) Motion carried. L. Resolution 6894 Approving Compensation Amounts for Easement Acquisition and Authorization to Execute Easements for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project Public Works Director Lee stated that as part of the project, the City needs to obtain eight temporary and eight permanent easements. He said the permanent easements are very small in size, from 2-6 feet, and that is why Staff is proposing setting an amount of $2.27 per square foot. He stated the costs are based the Associated guidelines for obtaining right-of-way. 2. Director Lee continued that after consulting with representatives from Kennedy and Graven, they realized that the lending companies holding the properties may require a land appraisal. He asked the Council to contract for land appraisals if needed and to make offers for the easements based of the appraised value. Director Lee stated Staff recommends authorization of the purchase. Mayor Marty stated that at $2.27 per square foot, the property with most square footage would be cost $1000 and the smallest $350. He said that the appraiser will cost more than purchasing the property outright. He asked if taxes would change since the house and property are appraised together. Finance Director Beer replied that they would change. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 32 City Attorney Riggs stated that if it is an easement, the amount will be negligible. He added that some mortgage lenders require, that when any modifications are made to the property, a package be submitted including an appraisal. Councilmember Thomas stated an appraisal may not be needed for every property. MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNK. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6894 Approving Compensation Amounts for Easement Acquisition and Authorization to Execute Easements for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project as amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. N. Resolution 6867 Approving the Hire of Ben Knitter as Police Officer Police Chief Sommer explained that the new hire will replace an officer who retired. He stated the number one candidate has passed all of his tests and background checks. He added that Mr. Knitter was the valedictorian of his high school class and had an excellent grade point average throughout college. MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6867 Approving the Hire of Ben Knitter as Police Officer. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Marty requested to pull Item 8F for additional discussion. A. Resolution 6854, Approving the 2006-2007 Mounds View Business Licenses B. Licenses for Approval C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:05 pm to consider an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:10 pm to consider an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 5201 Program Avenue E. Resolution 6855 Approving Contract for Legal Services with Kennedy and Graven .Resole# ea 6856 a Resolution Authorimagut:. of Se A-ppreeintion C eates-iv r�ii=rployees, 11&Vi[ig Aeitie ed it F: Year E l"en�ilestone as of 006. G. Resolution 6861 Approving a Charitable Gambling One -Day Permit for the Mounds View Community Theatre for the August 20, 2006 Mounds View Festival in the Park. H. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:15 pm to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Vacate an Excess Highway Easement Associated with the Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision. Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 33 I. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:20 pm to Consider an Outdoor Liquor Consumption Endorsement for Moe's located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View. J. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:25 pm to Consider an Appeal of a Variance Denial for 2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage Space at 8135 Long Lake Rd. K. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:30 pm to Consider a PUD Amendment Request from LandCor Regarding the Property Located at 2442 County Road 10. MOTION/SECOND: TIIOMAS/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. F. Resolution 6856 a Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of Service Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five Year Employment Milestone as of 2006. Mayor Marty asked to recognize these employees. He read the resolution in full including a list of employee names. Mayor Marty thanked the individuals for their service to the City. MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To approve Resolution 6856 a Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of Service Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five Year Employment Milestone as of 2006. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 12, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes MOTION/SECOND: FLAIIERTY/GUNN. To postpone corrections of the June 12, 2006 City Council meeting minutes until the July 10, 2006 meeting. Ayes — 5 Nays — 0 Motion carried. 11. REPORTS Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 34 A. Reports of Mayor and Council Mayor Marty stated he received a letter he wanted to read but will read it at a later time. He stated it is a letter of commendation to a Public Works staff for the good job they do. IIe said he would like to thank the Warrens for writing the letter. B. Reports of Staff City Administrator Ulrich stated there will be an appreciation lunch on June 28"' at the Community Center and compensation plans are due to be presented to the City on July 5"' and will be included in the July 101h meeting. City Administrator Ulrich stated a report about walkable communities will be distributed and some of the ideas will be incorporate into the planning. Random Park Building Replacement Project Update Public Works Director Lee stated that there is an option to use a residential -style sprinkler system that will still comply with the code. There are some complications, that 1.5" water supply will still be needed. He said a full report will be submitted on July 10"'. Mayor Marty asked if 3/4" or 1" was already going into the building and Public Works Director Lee replied that 3/4" is currently being use. Director Lee continued that Staff was investigating whether 1" would be able to do the job. He stated they are talking to a contractor who specializes in residential sprinkler systems to determine if such a system would work. Community Development Director Ericson discussed a memo he provided to Council regarding ongoing code enforcement activity in the City. Mayor Marty asked about an "AO Issue," and Community Development Director Ericson stated it stood for an Administrative Offense. Finance Director Beer stated that as part of year-end management report, the state auditor requested information regarding the use of Administrative Offenses. He added that he is looking for direction about how to respond. City Attorney Riggs stated that it is best for Staff to bring back a memorandum. He said at that point in time the Council can direct Staff how to respond. C. Reports of City Attorney There was none. 12. Next Council Work Session: Next Council Meeting: 13. ADJOURNMENT Monday, July 17, 2006, at 7 p.m. Monday, July 10, 2006, at 7 p.m. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 11:41 p.m. Transcribed by: Lauren McKay Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. June 26, 2006 Page 35