Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-11-WSEN HILLS Approved: June 13, 2011 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MAY 16, 2011 5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Pro -Tem Fran Holmes called to order the City Council Work Session meeting at 5:03 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant (arrived at 5:16 p.m.); Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, and Nick Tamble. Absent: Ed Werner (excused) Also present: City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Public Works Director Terry Maurer; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Meagan Beekman; Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson; and Deputy Clerk Rebecca Brazys. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Holden requested the addition of Item 3.G. TCAAP Information. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved, Councilmember Tamble seconded, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously (3 -0). 2. AGENDA ITEMS A. Round Lake Update City Administrator Klaers explained that City Staff received information from residents that additional testing was being done on Round Lake. Staff invited Mike Fix, U.S. Army, Charlie Blair, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Deepa DeAlwis, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, to attend this work session to discuss the status of Round Lake testing. Charlie Blair, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, explained that Round Lake is part of the National Wildlife Refuge system. In approximately 1981, TCAAP, including Round Lake, was classified ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 2 as a superfund site because of the level of contamination. At that time, the U.S. Army took responsibility for clean -up of Round Lake. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency g y regulates environmental mitigation at superfund sites. Round Lake has been closed to the public and there has been an attempt to maintain a high water level due to the contaminants in the sediment. Mike Fix, U.S. Army, explained that the Army started investigating the TCAAP area in 1979. In 1981, it was discovered that New Brighton and St. Anthony drinking water being drawn from this site was contaminated and immediate steps were taken to protect the residents of those cities. In a 1984 Risk Assessment, it was determined that there were unacceptable ecological risks at Round Lake. The Army drafted a feasibility study to mitigate or correct those contamination problems. Since there was no immediate health risks, very limited activity took place at Round Lake from 1984 to 2010. After the last draft of this study in April 2010. regulators determined that additional investigation was required. This investigation was completed in January and February 2011. The results of that investigation have just been compiled and distributed to regulators, but regulators have not yet had a chance to review that data. There were 135 oints of investigation p g for 7 contaminants. At this time, Mr. Fix explained, they don't know what the remediation recommendation will be or how much or what needs to be cleaned up. The regulators will be meeting June 1 to review the data. Another draft of the feasibility study will be required by regulators by this fall at the earliest. He also explained that public involvement will take place at some point in the process. He added that the EPA makes the final determination of what needs to be done. Deepa DeAlwis, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). explained that protecting human health is the primary concern for the MPCA and the EPA. She explained that an enormous amount of soil clean -up and water clean -up has been done to address the immediate threat to human health. Now, she explained, they are considering the ecological risks. She added that the MPCA is receptive to hearing residents' concerns. Councilmember Holden commented that the residents would prefer Round Lake remain a lake rather than become a wetland area. She then asked what the feasibility study would include. Mr. Fix stated that first they must determine what needs to be addressed and that could range from recommending no further action to applying a cap to the bottom of the lake, or dredging the lake bottom. Mayor Grant asked for clarification of what capping the bottom of the lake would entail. Mr. Fix explained that the cap could be a thin membrane to contain contaminants but that may not satisfy U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services. He also stated there could be a thick ca p but that would impact the aesthetics of the lake. Another option would be dredging the lake and back- filling with clean sediment. He further explained that the feasibility study would include cost, and that there are nine criteria that the alternatives are evaluated against. Ms. DeAlwis explained that when the MPCA reviewed the previous feasibility study's limited data set, they did not feel they had enough information about the sediment. The most recent ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 3 testing has provided a more complete data set but they have just received that information and need time to evaluate the data. Councilmember Tamble asked about the water quality in Round Lake. Mr. Fix responded that the water quality meets 2004 state standards. The contaminants, he explained, are in the sediment. He added that Round Lake has a tight clay Iayer, sometimes as thick as 40 feet, between the surface aquifer and sediment contamination. Councilmember Holmes asked who would be responsible for remediation costs for Round Lake. Mr. Fix stated the Army would pay for the remediation through the superfund process. Ms. DeAlwis added that the ecological risk assessment determined that lake - bottom organisms are being impacted by the contamination. Mr. Blair explained that the lake's ecosystem revolves around those organisms. Councilmember Tamble questioned what the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service hopes to do with the lake. Mr. Blair explained that they would like to see the lake open to the public for fishing, bird watching, and environmental education programs. They see Round Lake becoming a community asset if and when the EPA determines it to be safe. Councilmember Tamble questioned the value of Round Lake for migratory birds. Mr. Blair stated Round Lake is important and will become even more important as the area develops. He stated he believes this may be the last opportunity to make Round Lake whole. He also stated that Round Lake will always have open water; it may be drawn down to encourage vegetation growth around the shoreline to keep the lake healthy. He added that if nothing is done and a drought occurs, that would result in some of the sediment being exposed. He stressed that they would like to see a remedy that ensures the ecological integrity of the lake. There was some concern that Round Lake is too shallow for fish to survive the winter. Gerry Shimek, U.S. Fish & Wildife Service, stated there are holes in the lake that are as deep as 26 feet in some areas, so there is plenty of oxygenated water to carry fish through the winter. Mayor Grant questioned what draw -down means. Mr. Blair stated they could draw the lake level down a foot or two depending on the remedy. There could also be techniques for dredging that would lower the water level, but it's too early to determine what will be done. Ms. DeAlwis stated that residents will be given an opportunity to speak and that there is an active citizen's group that has been very involved over the past 20 years. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16. 2011 4 Mr. Fix also stated that there will be public education sessions prior to the feasibility study. Ms. DeAlwis explained that the bottom line is what the data tells them. If organisms are not what they should be, the MPCA and the EPA have a responsibility to correct that. How it is corrected or when is yet to be determined, but the final decision will be made by the EPA. Councilmember Holden requested a map that shows the varying depths of Round Lake. After some discussion, it was determined that information will be made available on the City's website and interested residents will be made aware of new developments. B. Arden Plaza Concept PUD Discussion City Planner Beekman explained that Arden Plaza and CVS Pharmacy are requesting a concept review of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment for the approved Arden Plaza Master PUD. The applicants are proposing several changes to the original plan and are requesting Council feedback. They would like to move forward to allow for certain revisions to the layout and timeline. Ms. Beekman summarized the changes as follows: proposed Building 1 would now be a CVS Pharmacy instead of a Walgreens and would be reoriented to have the entrance to the southeast. Building 1 has been moved to the east, closer to Lexington Avenue. allowing a row of parking to be removed between the building and the road. Building 3 has been eliminated from the plan; however, Building 2 has been moved up in the construction schedule and is now included in Phase 1. Pedestrian access to the site and parking layout has been modified to accommodate the revised building orientation. The existing parking area would be redone during Phase 1 and landscaping will be installed over the entire site. The existing retail building is not proposed to be altered as part of this development plan; however, it does appear to be in need of updating. Additional discussion to identify a timeline for facade improvements to the existing building would be appropriate at this time. Councilmember Holden questioned how this proposal deviates from the B2 plan. Ms. Beekman explained that this is a concept and the petitioners have not yet submitted the full application that would include all the details. Consequently she can't say how it meets or doesn't meet the B2 plan. Pete Keely, primary designer, reviewed the differences between the original proposal and the current plan. He explained the CVS Pharmacy location would be approximately 20 — 25 feet closer to Lexington which reduces the rows of parking by one. This is probably one of the most substantial changes. There would be full parking on the site for the proposal and they are aware of the Arden Hills signage issue on the corner of Lexington and County Road E. The intent for signage on this site is comparable to what was originally submitted except with a slightly different look to match some of the architectural character. The retail area is a bit smaller due to market conditions. The developer does intend to fully construct the buildings proposed as there is some ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16. 2011 5 optimism going forward for Phase 2. The CVS building will be a little taller than what was previously proposed. Mr. Keely explained that this is a very difficult site for a number of reasons; the property sits in a hole so there are some grade and access issues. In an effort to address some of those issues, they're trying to "snug the building up tight to County Road E." He stated they believe the B2 plan issues are an important piece to keeping the building close to County Road E while also having other access points. There will be pedestrian access coming down from the corner of the intersection, but those details will be included in the proposal at the next step. Mayor Grant asked the total square footage difference between this proposal and the previous one. Community Development Director Hutmacher referred to the chart included in the memo for this agenda item and stated it is about 5,700 square feet less than the original. Councilmember Holmes questioned if the developer now has no intention of proceeding with building three. Steve Wellington, owner and developer, stated this plan does not include building three. Mayor Grant questioned the phasing of the build -out for this development. Ms. Beekman referred to her memo which includes a description of the phasing; Phase 1 will include CVS and Building 2; Phase 2 will include Building 4. Denny Trooien, owner, stated that the original plan included a condition that prior to proceeding with Building 4, the City wanted to take another look at the traffic situation. He explained they are not asking for any deviation from those conditions. Councilmember Holden expressed concern that the reduction in building size would mean an increase in the amount of asphalt area on the site. Mr. Keely explained that there will be a little more green space than there was before. Ms. Beekman added that the space between Buildings 1 and 2 has widened to accommodate the CVS loading requirements and to move the garbage site to a better location. She stated the parking area is actually smaller. Mr. Keely explained that Building 2 is a little more rectangular and has been pushed further towards the east. Councilmember Tamble asked about the typical amount of parking spaces. Ms. Beekman explained that the site is parked as a whole so that there is shared parking between all the buildings. The total number of stalls is what would be expected for that many square feet of retail. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 6 Mr. Keely stated the parking area for the rest of Arden Plaza has decreased a little as a whole because a number of features have been added; storm water retention area and some parking spaces were removed to clean -up the access point; and there are some islands and landscape areas which means the overall affect of parking has gone down a little. Couneilmember Tamble asked what the proposed width is along County Road E from the curb cut to the retaining wall. Mr. Keely responded that it is 30 feet from CVS to the retaining wall and 13 feet from the back of the retaining wall to the property line. Mayor Grant questioned the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Keely stated it is about 5 feet on the north by County Road E and as high as 12 feet as you get to the edge of the parking lot. Mayor Grant asked if there is sufficient maneuverability for delivery trucks to go throughout the entire site, particularly where the drive - through is located for the pharmacy. Mr. Keely indicated that they do have sufficient area. Larry Webb, CVS, explained they have carefully planned for the truck traffic, but if necessary the trucks can deliver during off -hours if there is an issue. Councilmember Holmes questioned the purpose of the double drive - through. Mr. Trooien explained that one lane would be for pick -ups and the other for prescription drop - offs. Councilmember Holden commented that the original proposal only showed one drive - through. Ms. Beekman stated that is correct. Mayor Grant asked if there has been any interest expressed for Building 2. Mr. Wellington responded there has been interest and that it seems there is some improvement in economic conditions as more retailers are looking. Councilmember Holden stated the access from the south used to be at 90 degrees, now it looks like CVS will be an island on its own. Ms. Beekman explained that the angle at that access location is pretty similar to what it had been. Mayor Grant commented that the sidewalks appear to be the same. Ms. Beekman explained that by moving the entrance to the southeast allowed the pedestrian access to ascend more gradually for improved ADA access. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 7 Mayor Grant questioned if there is enough room for snow storage by the retaining wall. Mr. Keely responded that there is 3 to 4 feet in width all the way up to 8 or 9 feet in some areas. I-le added that there have been no changes to the sidewalk or the retaining wall in the new proposal. Ms. Holden asked Ms. Beekman to review the green space rules. Ms. Beekman explained that this is being done as a Master PUD so the site. as a whole, is being looked at as a single development which includes the existing retail space that's to remain, the new CVS, Building 2 and the future buildings are all being looked at as a single development. So the total landscaping on the site will meet the requirements of the code. Each individual parcel will be under or over the 20% but the aggregate amount will meet the code. The CVS landscaping will be approximately 13% and the existing retail site is closer to 30 %. Councilmember Holden asked where the majority of the green space is being accounted for. Ms. Beekman responded that Lot 4 has the most. Mr. Wellington explained that the focus will be on County Road E for the "Main Street" appearance; so that the entrance from County Road E is an attractive pedestrian access. Councilmember Holmes asked if a restaurant goes into Building 2. is the area to the west for outdoor seating. Mr. Wellington stated that is correct. Councilmember Holden questioned the reference to "brick veneer" in the building description. Mr. Keely stated the exterior will be standard brick. Mayor Grant commented that architecturally and aesthetically the CVS building is a more modern, appealing look. Councilmember Holden commented that this building will sit in such a hole that the EFTS will be more visible than the brick. Mr. Trooien commented that they have substantially more brick in this building than they normally would and the elevation of the parapet has been made higher to hide the mechanicals on the roof. Also, he explained, they will do something on the north side of the building so it doesn't look like the back of the building. Mayor Grant asked for clarification of "faux windows." Mr. Trooien explained that those windows that will be behind shelves, coolers. or storage area will contain graphics for whatever is appropriate on that site. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 8 Mr. Webb stated that at their St. Louis store the window graphics contain historical representations of that area. He added that CVS does not put sale signs or advertising in their windows. He stated that in some stores they use local artists to do the window graphics. Councilmember Holden expressed concern over the view of the west side of the building where all that would be visible is a big brick wall. She asked if the developer could add fake windows or something that would make that view a little more appealing. Mr. Trooien responded that they do plan to have landscaping along that side of the building. Mr. Keely added that the CVS building will be sitting low and that Building 2 will cover two - thirds of that view. The most visible part of the CVS building, he explained. will be the southwest corner. Mr. Wellington stated they will work to improve that view and added that what is before the Council this evening is not the final design. He stated their objective is to have all four sides of the building look attractive. City Administrator Klaers questioned the plans for Building 4. Mr. Wellington responded that they have a number of thoughts for Building 4, but they're a little "caught" because of previous direction from the Council and concern over the increase in traffic. They would like to be able to market Building 4 but have been hesitant because of the previous direction from the Council. Ms. Beekman added that at the original Council review, the use on the north side was a complete unknown and that has now become clearer. Mr. Klaers asked if there are plans to upgrade or improve the appearance of the existing building to blend in better with the new buildings being proposed. Mr. Wellington responded that there are two ways to go; they have considered tearing down part of the existing structures and put a new user in, or just fix it up and make it looked cared for. Again, he referred to the direction they originally received from the Council which was to "spruce up" the buildings but not commit to a complete redevelopment. Mayor Grant asked if the developer had considered a rear traffic exit from this development onto Pine Tree. Mr. Wellington agreed that would be a good idea, however, the property owner won't even discuss the possibility. They believe the two access points they are proposing will be adequate. He added that Frattalone's is very happy with their location and are considering expansion. In answer to Mr. Klaers' question, he explained that the most likely choice will be to work with the existing tenants to make those buildings look a little more like the new buildings being proposed. Councilmember Holden asked if this request is to amend the PUD. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 9 Ms. Beekman responded that this is an amendment to the Master PLED. Councilmember Tamble commented that the proposed monument on the corner appears to be behind the Arden Hills sign. Mr. Wellington responded that there is some flexibility and they are willing to work with the City for the best solution. Councilmember Holden asked for more detail on the bell tower shown on the drawings for the CVS building. Mr. Webb explained that it is for aesthetics only. Mayor Grant stated he is fine with the plan presented this evening; that he has no concerns or objections. He added that he likes the aesthetics of the design. Councilmember Tamble stated he welcomes the redevelopment of this property. Councilmember Holden commented that she wants to be sure that there is real brick used on the exterior of the new buildings. Councilmember Holmes questioned the statement that the site lay -out does not meet minimum setback requirements. Ms. Beekman explained that the CVS building and Building 2 do not meet the front setback requirement but this proposal is the same as originally approved. Councilmember Holmes also questioned the statement that the proposal does not meet the City's glass requirements. Ms. Beekman responded that those details will be addressed in the next step of this development process. Councilmember Holmes questioned if the reduced square footage of this proposal has resulted in more landscaping or more parking. Mr. Keely responded there is more landscaping and more parking than in the original proposal. Councilmember Holden stated another concern is the relationship with Arden Pharmacy related to this proposal. Mr. Wellington responded that they continue to have good relations with Arden Pharmacy. Mayor Grant suggested that the petitioner present a letter from Arden Pharmacy stating their agreement with this proposal. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 10 Mayor Grant suggested that the developer proceed to market Building 4 to determine what type of interest is out there. Councilmember Holmes stated if the developer believes that the customers wouldn't have a problem with the additional traffic, they should proceed with marketing Building 4. 3.0 2012 Budget Parameters City Administrator Klaers stated that at the April 25th meeting, the Council indicated that they didn't want to wait until June to discuss the CIP and the budget. Ms. Iverson has prepared material for today's work session for the Council's review. Councilmember Holden explained that she asked to have this on tonight's agenda so that if the Council's intention is to have a negative or zero increase, it would be nice for Finance to have that information up front. Finance Director Iverson explained that her memo outlines the same information she requests from the Council each year in June, except that the only thing additional in this memo is whether or not the Council wants input in the CIP budget before she prepares the first run - through in June. She will not have any figures from the Department of Revenue until late July or August so she has to prepare the 2012 operating budget based on estimates. What she is looking for this evening is guidance from the Council before staff begins the 2012 budget preparation. The last two years, the Council has met on the budget the third Monday in August. She explained that Council used to have a budget work session at the end of August when she had the figures from the County. She explained that it would not be advantageous to have a meeting before that point in time as we would not know taxable values, fiscal disparity contributions, or be able to estimate the impact to residential property owners. Mayor Grant commented that last year the .81% levy increase equated to a residential levy increase of 6.8 %. This year he wants to be sure that the impact on the tax rate is no more than the implicit price deflator. Mr. Klaers stated that there are some guaranteed increases in Public Safety that must be considered. Ms. Iverson stated the City has doubled the number of email accounts since 2006 and have added laptops for the Council which has impacted our support costs. We pay $25,000 annually now and this has not been increased in three years. We should be paying $36,000 based on our usage. Councilmember Tamble stated he concurs with the last bullet point in Ms. Iverson's memo regarding performance measures and service indicators for each department and the need for a community survey. He also stated that he would prefer to meet and discuss the budget when Ms. Iverson has the details from the County so the Council can make a more informed decision. Councilmember Holden commented that she does not want any increase to the levy above 1 %. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 11 Councilmember Holmes stated she wants to know the dollar amount per the average resident and would also like to see what staff feels they need in the budget. 3.D Garage Amendment Discussion City Planner Beekman explained that at the February 22nd Joint Planning Commission and City Council work session, there was some discussion about changing the Zoning Code to allow detached garages in the front yards of riparian lots. At that time, Staff was directed to move forward with drafting possible language that would allow lakeshore lot owners to construct detached garages in their front yards under certain circumstances. Staff has prepared such language and would like Council's feedback on how to proceed. This language was shared with the Planning Commission and the members were generally in favor of the language. There was also some discussion about this pertaining to non lakeshore properties that were particularly narrow, but the general consensus was that this language was what they wanted. Proposed language: A. Detached accessory garages may be located in the front yard (between dwelling and street) of a lakeshore property provided all of the following are met: 1. Detached garages shall not be located within the minimum front yard setback. 2. Color and roof material of detached garages shall match or complement the existing primary residential structure, and shall conform to all other requirements for the zoning district. Councilmember Holden asked if there would be any height restrictions on the garages. She referred to problems with people living in "carriage type houses" and she would like to restrict the height to no more than 15 feet with no variances allowed. Ms. Beekman responded the City cannot make an ordinance that doesn't allow people to apply for a variance. But, she added, a height variance would be difficult to obtain because of the standards required to qualify for a variance. As far as the existing structures that exceed the 15 foot height, she explained that there has been some inconsistent interpretation by staff over the years of the height restrictions, but those issues have since been worked out and the definition of height in our ordinance is now quite clear. Councilmember Holden questioned the number of outbuildings allowed and wondered if a boathouse would be included in that limit. Ms. Beekman stated that a boathouse is considered an accessory structure and would be counted as one of the two allowable outbuildings. The intent of this ordinance amendment is to allow residents to build a garage to address storage issues which seems to be a big need on lakeshore properties. Councilmember Holmes asked if Staff had included through lots (street frontage on both ends of the lot) in their consideration for this amendment. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 12 Ms. Beekman stated she doesn't see an impediment in our ordinance for accessory structures on through lots. She explained our ordinance allows the Staff to determine which is the front yard and which is the rear yard. She added that we may want to move that language into the section of the code currently under review so that it's clear rather than just being included in the definition section. The consensus of the Council was to direct Staff to proceed with the amendment as proposed. 3.E Notification Requirements City Planner Beekman explained that in the last six months, the City has reviewed a number of planning cases that drew the attention of residents. The question of who is notified when a public hearing is to be held was raised by Councilmembers and residents as well as neighboring communities. She explained that state statute requires notification of all property owners within a minimum of 350 feet of a subject property for all public hearings. She then reviewed the notification policy for some of the surrounding communities. She explained that Staff is looking for direction from the Council to establish a City policy that would identify appropriate notification distances. She further explained that for projects Staff anticipates will be controversial, the notification area is extended. She referred to the recent Fox Ridge project when Staff extended the notification to 1,000 feet and beyond. She also explained that if the Council decides to extend the notification area that will result in increased costs which means we may r want to consider raising our fees. Couneilmember Holmes commented that for some applications, such as a variance. she didn't feel going beyond the 350 feet would be warranted, but on larger projects the extended notification would be appropriate. Ms. Beekman explained that there are no requirements for notification of variance applications but the current practice is to notify residents within 350 feet. Couneilmember Holden questioned how often Staff goes beyond the 350 feet notification and indicated that she would like to see the extended notification done on a case -by -case basis. Ms. Beekman responded that anything within the B2 district, she usually does send notification to property owners within 500 feet. For the Arden Plaza petition, because of the interest in that project, the notification was sent to properties within 1,000 feet. Couneilmember Holmes stated she believes the notification should be 1 ,000 feet for projects such as Fox Ridge or Presbyterian Homes. She recalled that at one time the Council had made an informal recommendation for 1.000 foot notification which was followed for a while then stopped. City Administrator Klaers expressed concern that increasing the notification area may necessitate holding hearings at a location other than City Hall because Council Chambers cannot accommodate that many people. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 13 Mayor Grant stated he doesn't think 350 feet is enough notification and recommended Council establish a "floor" of 500 foot notification and if there's something controversial, that should be extended to a 1,000 foot notification. City Administrator Klaers recommended the ordinance remain at 350 foot notification to ensure that, in case of an error, we are not in violation of our own ordinance. He added that Council could set a policy for the 500 foot minimum, or 1,000 foot minimum or as deemed appropriate by Staff. Councilmember Tamble commented that setting a policy at 500 feet minimum would allow Council to show residents that we were exceeding the statutory minimum. Councilmember Holmes was concerned that if the ordinance isn't changed, the Council policy may eventually not be followed as has happened in the past. After further discussion, Council consensus was to leave the ordinance as is but set a Council policy that the notification requirement be 350 feet for variances, a minimum of 500 feet for public hearings, and Staff discretion for large or controversial projects. 3.F State of the City Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that in many cities, State of the City meetings are geared toward the business community. If that is the intent, she recommended that the meeting be set as a breakfast or lunch meeting during the week. She believed that scheduling State of the City in the early evening to accommodate both businesses and residents may result in poor attendance by one or both groups. City Administrator Klaers commented that the City's Economic Development Commission (EDC) had expressed an interest in meeting with the business owners. Councilmember Holden stated that in the past, each Councilmember made a presentation on a specific item of concern for the City. She believes that the residents are interested in what's happening in the community. Councilmember Tamble commented that the State of the City should be geared towards businesses but with residents also invited to attend. Councilmember Holmes suggested that the City booth at Celebrating Arden Hills be more visible with Councilmembers working in the booth. Mr. Klaers suggested that the EDC take the lead by scheduling a meeting with business leaders that the Council could attend. The consensus of the Council was to schedule a breakfast meeting for businesses in early fall with the EDC coordinating the event and Council participation. 3.G TCAAP / Stadium Update ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 14 Councilmember Holden asked if, at the Council's next meeting, Staff could have an analysis of the Ramsey County agreement with the Vikings to see if those items requested by the Council have been included. Mayor Grant asked if it is Councilmember Holden's intent to go over this analysis at a Council. meeting. Councilmember Holden responded yes, that is what she wants to do. Community Development Hutmacher responded that Staff has been reviewing the agreement informally. She then asked if the Council wants a memo they can simply review, or if they want to discuss the comparison at a regular meeting. Councilmember Holden stated that residents have been asking over and over what is being done to protect the City financially; such as with increased public safety costs, and the City Council needs to respond. Councilmember Tamble agreed that the public needs to hear more from the City about the stadium. Mayor Grant stated one of the issues is that Ramsey County was negotiation with the Vikings right up to the last moment prior to the public announcement; there wasn't time to review the language or contact the residents. He agrees that residents want to know particularly the financial aspects of this proposal. Councilmember Holden pointed out that this is just an agreement to start talking about an agreement, but residents don't realize that. Discussion ensued and it was decided to place this matter as the first item on the Council's next meeting agenda with an analysis of the County agreement in memo form with the packet. 4. STAFF UPDATES MnDOT Request City Administrator Klaers reviewed correspondence from MnDOT regarding the 1 -694 / TH 51 project indicating that they would like to move forward with advertising for bids for this project. Public Works Director Maurer explained that MnDOT's request is to advertise for bids a month early before the City approves Municipal Consent or the Appeals Board gives a final ruling. The Appeal Board met today and MnDOT was directed to include in the layout for this project the location of the berming, to prepare a letter specifically talking about the timeframe for improvement to the Lexington Avenue Bridge, and then get those items to the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board has another meeting scheduled in early June where they will review the decision made by the Council at their last meeting in May and then based on that, the Appeal Board will ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 15 take the appropriate action. He added that allowing MnDOT to proceed gets them a month ahead in their schedule and the City never had any intention of trying to stop the project completely. Mayor Grant stated he doesn't have a problem with this request but he would like to see the design for the pedestrian walkway on Lexington to ensure that the ten feet is on the Arden Hills side. Mr. Maurer stated we won't see the design before the City has to make a decision or before it goes to the Appeal Board. After some discussion, the Council consensus was to allow MnDOT to advertise for bids as requested. TCAAP / Stadium Questions City Administrator Klaers requested that Council provide feedback on the memo regarding the most frequently asked questions and talking points for the stadium issue by the end of the day Tuesday. Bethel / Old Library Site City Planner Beekman explained that Bethel University has a purchase agreement for the old library site in Arden Hills contingent on Council approval of their plan. She explained what they're preliminary looking at is demolishing the Baptist Conference site and constructing an office building with some classrooms. They are interested in doing a concept PUD review. Ms. Beekman was looking for guidance from the Council as to when they want to review this matter. She asked if this could be added to the Council's June work session which is typically dedicated to CIP. She explained that because Bethel is a paying applicant, she would like to get them scheduled in a timely manner. Mayor Grant questioned the zoning on this site. Ms. Beekman responded that the Baptist Conference location is zoned Neighborhood Business and the former library site is zoned residential so a rezoning would be required. The consensus of the Council was that this is a residential area and the property should continue to be zoned residential. Ms. Beekman stated she can give Bethel that feedback, but she pointed out that they're looking at a multi- million dollar investment and would probably prefer to hear directly from Council rather than from Staff. Councilmember Tamble commented that he understands the area is residential, but Bethel isn't proposing to put up a gas station, and there had been a library on this site. Further discussion ensued and it was determined that a 6:30 work session be set prior to the Council's first meeting in June. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 16 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS Tobacco Ordinance Councilmember Holden stated some surrounding communities have recently added language to their ordinance regarding tobacco - tasting establishments. City Administrator Klaers explained that Staff is working on updating the tobacco section of our ordinance. Reschedule May 31' Meeting Councilmember Holmes stated that due to a family emergency she will not be able to attend the May 31st Council meeting. She asked if that meeting can be moved to June 1. Council consensus was to reschedule the May 31 S0 meeting to June 1. Mayor Grant presented the following comments: • There were meetings held today at the State Capital regarding the Vikings stadium. • He requested that Public Works install a concrete pad around the bike rack in front of City Hall. • In Freeway Park, the building moved there from Valentine Park needs a new roof. • On the new trail in Perry Park a section of the trail has sunk. • He questioned the status of the water meter concerns. Public Works Director Maurer explained that the issue is making the batteries last because the equipment is old and obsolete. Another concern is that he has been advised by the FCC that the frequency used for reading water meters will not be supported after 2012. He will present details to the Council at their second meeting in June. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council Work Session meeting at 9:30 p.m. Patrick Klaers City Administrator David Grant Mayor