Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-14-R 'It ,- lEN HILLS Approved: July 14, 2014 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 27,2014 7:00 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:03 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung, and Ed Werner Absent: None Also present: Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; City Planner Ryan Streff; Assistant City Engineer John Anderson; Parks and Recreation Manager Michelle Olson; and City Clerk Amy Dietl PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Grant requested that the Consent Agenda be amended to include Item 5G, the Hiring of Seasonal Public Works Employees. He requested that Item 8C be added under New Business, which would discuss taking action against 1861 Lakeshore Place. Councilmember Holden requested that Items 5C and 5E be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. PUBLIC INQUIRIESANFORMATIONAL Charlie Kachel, 1500 Arden Place, requested that the Council address the exterior lighting on the businesses in Arden Hills. He recommended nylon lights be considered in lieu of Christmas lights. He did not believe it was proper for businesses to have Christmas lights in use year-round. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 2 3. STAFF COMMENTS A. TCAAP Update Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that on May 1, 2014, Ramsey County received four proposals for the development and design of on-site infrastructure (the "Infrastructure Study"). The selection committee has made a recommendation, and Ramsey County is negotiating the final contract with the consultant. A kick-off discussion with the consultant team is scheduled for the June 30, 2014, City Council work session. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that public comments on the draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan are being accepted until May 28, 2014. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to review the final document on June 30, 2014,with approval anticipated in July. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that with City Council approval of the Master Plan Land Use Map scheduled for June 30, 2014, staff and consultants are beginning to schedule work for the regulations and policies component of the master planning process. Work session discussion topics will be defined in the next month. Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that special and regular City Council work sessions have been scheduled to discuss issues related to the Master Plan and City infrastructure. Discussion topics are tentatively planned as follows: May 27, 2014, (Tuesday), Special Work Session at 6:00 pm, Community Room • I-35W/Highway 96 Interchange Discussion June 16, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers • Review Revised Master Plan • Review Aesthetics for I-35W Bridges June 30, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Review Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan • Kick-off Discussion with Infrastructure Development/Design Consultant Team June 30, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers • Approve Master Plan • Municipal Consent for I-35W/Highway 96 July 14, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers • Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) July 21, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) July 28, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers • Approve Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 3 Staff anticipates that additional regular and special work sessions will be scheduled to discuss TCAAP issues. Future meeting topics will be defined as those dates draw nearer. Community Development Director Hutmacher discussed the celebration that is planned at TCAAP to commemorate the 701h Anniversary of D-Day, along with the one year anniversary of the demolition of the first building on TCAAP. The event will be held on June 6, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. and is open to the public. B. Transportation Update Assistant City Administrator Anderson provided the Council with an update on the Highway 10/County Road 96 intersection. He explained that work is progressing and the signals should be operational in one to two weeks, barring any additional weather delays. He noted that the curb work has been completed. He noted that the County will begin working on Hamline Avenue on May 28th. He indicated that notification has been made to the public and the mill and overlay project is anticipated to be completed by June 9th. Councilmember Holden recommended that Hamline Avenue be patrolled in order to ensure traffic is properly managed and that backups are minimized during the mill and overlay project. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 14, 2014, Special TCAAP Work Session B. April 14, 2014, Regular City Council C. April 14, 2014, Special Work Session Councilmember Holmes requested a change to Page 2 of the April 14, 2014, regular City Council minutes. She stated that on Page 2, at the top section in Ms. Hutmacher's comment, the JDA should be referred to as an Authority and not a Commission. Councilmember Werner requested a change to Page 4 of the April 14, 2014, regular City Council minutes, correcting the spelling of Dr. Seeley's name. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to approve the April 14, 2014, special TCAAP work session minutes as presented, the April 14, 2014, regular City Council meeting minutes as amended, and the April 14, 2014, special work session minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll B. Motion to Approve Hard Court Maintenance at Johanna Marsh G.Motion to A,-.pr-eVe Dl.,,,, ingase 1�5DT—r�T mendment—Rnoston Seienti is D. Motion to Approve Recycling Contract Addendum — Adding Single Sort Collection ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 4 F. Motion to Approve Xcel Energy Contract Lighting Installation Round Lake Road— Gateway Boulevard G. Motion to Approve the Hiring of Seasonal Public Works Employees. MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as amended and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 6. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS A. Planning Case 14-015—PUD Amendment—Boston Scientific Councilmember Holden noted that Boston Scientific has several temporary items that need to be resolved. She requested that staff address these matters. Associate Planner Bachler explained that Boston Scientific only has one temporary permit at this time and it is for a temporary walkway between two buildings. He indicated that an extension for an additional five years for the walkway was granted in January 2014. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the May 27,2014, Report to the City Council. The motion carried (5-0). B. Approve Purchase of Building Department Vehicle Councilmember Holden indicated that this purchase was considered carefully in the 2014 budget and she stated that $20,000 was allocated for the vehicle. She commented that she could not support this purchase and is only willing to approve $20,000 to purchase a vehicle. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to deny the purchase of a Ford Escape for the amount of $24,366.67 for the Building Department vehicle. Mayor Grant believed that this purchase needed more justification and requested that staff take another look at this vehicle purchase. He does not believe that an off-road vehicle is necessary. He stated that he will be supporting the motion to deny. Councilmember Holden agreed stating that a vehicle for off-road purposes is not necessary. Councilmember McClung recommended that this matter be tabled to allow staff to reconsider the purchase. Councilmember Holden did not believe the matter should be tabled. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 5 MOTION: Councilmember McClung moved and Councilmember Werner seconded a motion to table action on this item. The motion failed 2-3 (Holden, Holmes and Mayor Grant opposed). The motion to deny carried (5-0). 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case 14-014—Setback Variance—1850 Venus Avenue City Planner Streff stated that the applicants in this case own the property located at 1850 Venus Avenue. The property is Zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is generally positioned north of County Road E2 West, south of Venus Avenue, east of Interstate 35W and west of Snelling Avenue North. The subject property is considered by the Zoning Code to be a corner lot, as it is situated at the corner of Venus Avenue and Rolling Hills Road. However, Rolling Hills Road is an unimproved City right-of-way that terminates approximately 200 feet south of Venus Avenue and is used solely for trail purposes. This area was platted in 1956 as Shorewood Hills Addition No. 6 and Rolling Hills Road was stubbed in for a future connection to County Road E2 West. The connection to County Road E2 West was never completed and is unlikely to be developed as the land to the south is within Tony Schmidt Regional Park and the need for an additional access to this subdivision is unwarranted at this time. City Planner Streff reported that the applicants are proposing to construct a twenty-four(24) foot by thirty-eight (38) foot or 912 square foot attached garage to the east side of the single family dwelling. The garage would be constructed between the existing dwelling and the east property line. As proposed, the new addition would encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along the platted right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road. The required forty (40) foot setback along Venus Avenue would be maintained along with the remaining rear and side yard setbacks. A variance to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback is being requested, which would leave a setback of ten (10) feet from the east property line. City Planner Streff indicated that grading would be conducted along the north and east sides of the home in order to prepare the new garage pad and driveway, and to reclaim the existing driveway area back to a natural vegetative state. The site plan indicates that some amount of grading would occur in the City's right-of-way along Rolling Hills Road. Any grading to be completed in the right-of-way would require approval by the City in conjunction with a Grading and Erosion Control Permit. City Planner Streff explained that the applicants have indicated that the fagade and roofing materials to be used on the new garage addition would match the materials on the existing home. Following the construction of the new addition the existing tuck-under garage would be converted to functioning living space, the existing driveway and stairway up to the front door would be ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 6 removed and new landscaping would be installed. In order to create a finished look, the fagade area on the former garage would be designed to match the existing home so that a consistent exterior fagade is maintained. Once removed, the old concrete driveway area would be graded to match the existing grade along the front of the home. Two new trees would be planted to fulfill the Tree Preservation Ordinance and tree mitigation standards. City Planner Streff reviewed the Plan Evaluation, Tree Preservation Plan and Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. The property is in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is 15,569 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 133.5 feet in width, and 116.5 feet in depth. Although the total square footage of the lot meets the requirements in the R-1 Zoning District, the actual dimensions of the lot do not meet the minimum size requirements. 3. The existing dwelling and attached tuck-under garage meet all property line setbacks. 4. The proposed garage addition would encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along the right-of-way platted as Rolling Hills Road. 5. The proposed addition does not encroach into the rear yard setback or the front yard setback along Venus Avenue. 6. The platted section of right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road is used solely for the purposes of a city and county trail. 7. The unimproved right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road extends approximately 200 feet from Venus Avenue, where it terminates at the adjacent property line for Tony Schmidt Regional Park. At this time, there are no plans to extend the right-of-way or construct a roadway in this area. 8. The existing garage would be converted into living space and the existing driveway would be removed if a variance is granted. 9. The proposed structure and landscaping coverage are within the zoning district requirements. 10. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 11. Single Family Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-1 Zoning District. 12. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 13. The property directly east of the subject property located at 1834 Venus Avenue encroaches into the secondary front yard setback along Rolling Hills Road approximately fifteen(15) feet. Variance Findings: 14. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 7 15. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 16. Single family dwelling are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 17. The lot has rather unique characteristics for a corner lot within the City. The property is situated on a corner lot, of which only one of the right-of-ways, Venus Avenue, consists of an improved surface. The right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road along the east side of the property is unimproved and is used for trail purposes only. There are no plans at this time to extend or improve this right-of-way. 18. The proposed addition would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the addition would not be inconsistent in terms of setbacks and lot coverage requirements for typical non-corner lots. The property owner would match the materials used for siding and roofing to the existing dwelling, which should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 19. The proposed addition is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. Based on the proposed setbacks the property would function as a typical non-corner lot within the R-1 Single Family Residential District. The trail that has been constructed within the right-of-way of Rolling Hills Road is not likely to be affected by the proposed addition. 20. The proposed plans and variance request for the addition to the single family dwelling does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City Planner Streff reported that the Findings of Fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the City Council chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. He indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 14-014 and recommends approval (5-1) of the variance request for the property located at 1850 Venus Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as presented in the May 27, 2014, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following seven(7) conditions: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. 3. That the final grade of the lot including the grade of the existing driveway shall be approved by the City. The final grade shall match the character of the neighborhood and the existing grade along the front of the home. 4. That grading shall not be allowed outside the property boundary lines without consent from the adjacent property owner. 5. That a tree preservation plan and financial surety or escrow for these improvements shall be submitted to the City before the building permit is issued. 6. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That a building permit for the construction of the garage and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 8 7. That the exterior facade of the addition and the existing garage area shall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the existing structure. The final facade shall be approved by the City Planner. Councilmember Holden questioned if staff received any complaints from homeowners that lived by trails. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that she was not aware of any complaints. Parks and Recreation Manager Olson commented that she has only received a couple of complaints. Councilmember Holden did not support the applicant imposing on the setback for the proposed garage expansion. She suggested that the homeowner pursue a two-car garage expansion. Councilmember Holmes questioned if the requested variance was in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. She believed space was needed for the trail and for this reason, she cannot support having the homeowner encroaching onto the setback. Mayor Grant believed that the property could be put to use in a reasonable manner. It is his opinion that a three-car garage is not necessary when the applicant already has a two-car garage. He does not believe that the Council had to approve the maximum request because the applicant wants to expand their property. Councilmember Werner stated that tuck-under garages were built in the 60's and 70's. He believes this to be a safety issue given the fact that bedrooms are located directly above the garage. He explained that he would support the variance request as it eliminates the tuck-under garage. Councilmember Holden agreed that tuck-under garages are a concern, however, she cannot overlook the encroachment on the trail. Councilmember McClung stated that he is concerned with the encroachment and suggested that the applicants pursue a two-car garage to reduce the impact on the adjacent trail easement. Councilmember Holden questioned how the applicant would like the Council to proceed with this matter. City Planner Streff indicated that the applicant would be in favor of resubmitting their request at a future meeting. Councilmember McClung questioned if the applicant had other plans that would not encroach so far into the required setback. Kyle Irestone, 1850 Venus Avenue, discussed his options, reiterating that his lot was considered a corner lot. He explained that if his lot was reviewed as a typical lot, the request would be within the setback standards for an R-1 lot. He discussed his reasoning for wanting to eliminate the tuck- ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 9 under garage noting that his pipes froze this past winter and his bedrooms were quite cold. He commented that the three-car garage was requested to allow for a staircase to get from the garage into the home. Mayor Grant commented that the Council was concerned about the proposed extent of the encroachment into the required setback. He stated that the Council may be willing to consider some level of encroachment, but did not support the present request. He suggested that the applicant consider a deep two-car garage as this would lessen the encroachment. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to table action on this item. The motion carried (5-0). B. Planning Case 14-018—PUD Amendment—Arden Plaza Associate Planner Bachler stated that in June 2009, the City Council approved a Master Planned Unit Development for the Arden Plaza retail center on the southwest corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue. The approved Master PUD included the demolition of an existing office building, the subdivision of the parcel, and construction of four buildings to be completed over three phases. As part of this application, approval was also granted for a Final PUD for Phase I of the project. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the City Council later approved an amendment to the Final PUD for Phase I and an updated Preliminary and Final Plat in August 2011. In addition to revising the number of lots and reducing the number of buildings to be constructed as part of the Master PUD, the amendment also allowed for a new timeline for the completion of the three project phases. Associate Planner Bachler explained that under the current development agreement between the City and Arden Hills, LLC, the submittal deadline for the Final PUD — Phase II application was June 1, 2013. The submittal deadline for the Final PUD — Phase III application is June 1, 2014. Due to the slow economic recovery, Arden Plaza, LLC has been unable to successfully market the two pad sites on the property that would allow for the completion of Phase II and III as outlined in the Master PUD plan. The property owner is therefore requesting a PUD Amendment to extend the submittal deadlines for the future phases of the project. Staff is currently working with the City Attorney and the Arden Plaza property owners on an Amended and Restated Development Agreement for the site. This effort was initiated so that the development agreements pertaining to the City approvals granted for the project can be properly recorded with Ramsey County. The Amended and Restated Development Agreement will encompass all previous development agreements and amendments, and going forward will be the principal regulatory document for the parcels within the PUD. Associate Planner Bachler stated that he presented a draft version of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement to the City Council at a work session on April 21, 2014. The draft document included two substantive changes from what was originally approved by the City. One of these changes was the extension now being reviewed in Planning Case 14-018. Following its ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 10 discussion, the City Council directed staff to have Arden Plaza, LLC submit a formal application requesting this extension. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the Pamela Couch Trust and JGC Trust,joint owners of the parcel where Walgreens is located, also requested a change that would have removed the condition that waives their right to appeal assessments levied against their property for the B-2 District streetscape improvements. The City Council directed staff to keep the existing language regarding the assessment in the document. Staff is continuing to work with the Trusts and Walgreens on how they would like to proceed. Once this issue is resolved, a final Amended and Restated Development Agreement will come back to the City Council for review. The Agreement will incorporate any approvals granted by the City Council in Planning Case 14-018. Associate Planner Bachler recommended approval of Planning Case 14-018 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3527 Lexington Avenue North and 1150 County Road E West, based on the May 27, 2014, Report to the City Council. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 14-018 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3527 Lexington Avenue North and 1150 County Road E West, based on the May 27,2014, Report to the City Council. Councilmember Holden asked if there was anything the Council could do to assist with the assessment discussions. Associate Planner Bachler provided comment on how the assessment discussions were progressing with the multiple entities. The motion carried (5-0). C. Discussion on 1861 Lakeshore Place Mayor Grant commented that a portion of Lakeshore Place abutting the property at 1861 Lakeshore Place would be paved as early as next Tuesday. He expressed concern with the drainage around this property and requested comment from staff. Assistant City Engineer Anderson discussed the location of this property along with the grade of the roadway. He reviewed the plan for the roadway, along with the location of the proposed concrete curb and gutter. It was noted that the water collected from the curb would flow into a ditch. He explained that a portion of right-of-way was purchased from the property owner for an Xcel transmission line and would also have two drainage swales. He commented that the depth of the ditch was not excessive but would allow for water collection. Assistant City Engineer Anderson understood that the property owner had concerns with the ditch for several reasons. The aesthetics were an issue, along with potential drainage issues of the storm water collected. He reported that the capacity of the culvert would be much greater than that of a curb inlet. He stated that curb inlets had the potential to clog. If the City were to try and rebuild this area with curb and gutter storm sewer, the City would need to assume a $40,000 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 11 change order. He indicated that this has been a County project and the residents have not been assessed for this project. Councilmember Holden asked if the culvert and ditch would have adequate space for a 100 year storm event. She feared that this drainage ditch would have the same issues as has been seen with the drainage ditch in Indian Oaks. Assistant City Engineer Anderson discussed how the new ditch would be graded to provide for proper water storage. He indicated that the issues associated with Indian Oaks were that drainage was running through backyards and was inaccessible for maintenance; and it has a relatively flat grade. He reviewed the County's process for creating the plan reiterating that the property owner was given money for the right-of-way for the ditch. Mayor Grant questioned if the homeowner understood that Lakeshore Place would have no catch basins along this roadway other than the ditch and culvert on his property. He asked if the catch basin was a change order. Assistant City Engineer Anderson discussed the plans for the roadway further and noted that the catch basin was not a change order. Councilmember McClung inquired if the Ramsey County plan presented to the City had the curb. Assistant City Engineer Anderson stated that the curbing was not a part of the initial plan reviewed by the City. He indicated that the City requested it be added because of staff concerns. He reported that Rice Creek Watershed approved the plans. Councilmember Holden asked when the homeowner would have been approached regarding the plans. Assistant City Engineer Anderson was uncertain, but believed this would have taken place prior to the plans being completed. Councilmember Holden inquired if the culvert was large enough to handle the amount of water that would be flowing onto this property from the street and questioned if the culvert could be buried. Assistant City Engineer Anderson stated that the culvert was properly sized and noted that the culvert could not be buried because the bend in the culvert had to take place in a structure above ground. He reported that the culvert would convey water in a more efficient manner than the catch basin. Councilmember Holden asked if staff had spoken to Ramsey County regarding this matter. Assistant City Engineer Anderson commented that he had spoken with Ramsey County regarding the paving schedule,but not regarding the ditch issue. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 12 Mayor Grant questioned if the contractor had considered using a P-trap. Assistant City Engineer Anderson indicated he was not familiar with this terminology. Mayor Grant requested that the cost estimates be further discussed. Assistant City Engineer Anderson reviewed the expenses to remove the ditch and replace the area with curb and gutter. Councilmember Holden did not believe that the Council had enough information to make a decision on this matter. Mayor Grant recommended that the property owner address the Council. Dave Cmiel, 1861 West Highway 96, appreciated the Council's time. He stated that MnDOT completed the original drawings and the water runoff was left unaddressed. He feared that if the ditch did not work, the City would have a major concern to address. He commented that no one from the City, County or MnDOT sat down and discussed how the water runoff from the crown would be displaced. He stated that he has had recent discussions with the County and fears how the water runoff from the street could damage his property. He believed that the volume of water flowing down this street would increase after the road was repaved. He is interested in MnDOT having a catch basin stating that this may be a more efficient way to collect the water runoff. Councilmember Holmes questioned how the water from the road previously drained. Mr. Cmiel stated that there have always been issues with the water runoff. He did not believe that he should be responsible for water running off of the street. He was told by the County and MnDOT that a change needed to be made. It was his opinion that the roadway would remain unfinished in front of his property given the collection of water that would be assumed on his property. Councilmember Holmes asked why this area had a turn around. Mr. Cmiel reported that the turnaround serviced five homes in the area, including garbage and mail services. Councilmember Holmes questioned how MnDOT and the County would react if the City recommended changes to the plans for this ditch change. Assistant City Engineer Anderson commented that a contractor had been hired to complete the ditch and if the City wishes to make a change, this would have to be negotiated with the contractor and the project deadline would have to be extended. There were a number of steps that the City would have to go through in order to make the change and he believed a premium would have to be paid to make the change. Councilmember Holmes did not understand why the County or MnDOT would recommend placing a ditch in a resident's front yard given the fact this was not a rural area. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 13 Assistant City Engineer Anderson indicated that the ditch and culvert were in place before the project began, and that the County and MnDOT were keeping the water runoff the same. Mayor Grant clarified that there was no curb and gutter along the roadway prior to this project. After the project is completed, a great deal of water runoff will be directed to Mr. Cmiel's property as the road has been crowned. He reviewed how the road alignment has changed. He agreed that the ditch was rural-looking and believed it did not belong in Arden Hills. He understood the timing was unfortunate but recommended the Council take action now. Councilmember Holden stated that the City had similar water runoff areas in the City with rain gardens. She indicated that she was willing to pave the area at this time, and fix it later if a problem did arise. Mayor Grant inquired how much the City would spend to correct the problem at a future date. Assistant City Engineer Anderson anticipated that the expense could be less in the future because the City would be paying a premium to change the contract if done before next week. Mayor Grant expressed concern with how water would impact Mr. Cmiel's property. He feared that if the ditch were to overflow it would run into the yard and into the basement. Councilmember McClung commented that the Council was discussing a theoretical problem that does not currently exist. He trusted the recommendation of the City's Engineer and noted that the Rice Creek Watershed approved the ditch. Councilmember Holden asked if the ditch was prepared for a 100-year storm. Assistant City Engineer Anderson explained that culverts are typically designed for five or ten- year rain events. Anything that did not flow through the culvert would flow down the street toward County Road 96. Further discussion ensued regarding the grading and flow of water along the roadway. Councilmember Holden questioned if the City could create a berm in Mr. Cmiel's yard to ensure that water does not spill back into their yard from the ditch. Assistant City Engineer Anderson stated that this would be an option. Mayor Grant did not want to put the home in jeopardy. Councilmember McClung questioned how the Council was going to proceed with this matter. Mayor Grant asked if the curb and gutter option would manage rain from a 10-year rain event. Assistant City Engineer Anderson stated that this was the case and that any water overage would run toward the lake. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 14 Mayor Grant was in favor of the Council making a recommendation that Mr. Cmiel's property be fronted completely with concrete curb and gutter. Councilmember McClung reported that this may not be the most appropriate solution for this property given the fact that staff has not had a great deal of time to review and investigate this matter. Mayor Grant recommended that the Council direct staff to investigate how to resolve this situation and report back to the Council. Councilmember McClung indicated that he could support this recommendation. MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to direct staff to investigate solutions with the homeowner, the County and MnDOT on how to resolve the situation at the Cmiel's property and report back to the Council. Councilmember Holden stated that she wanted to see a range of options. Assistant City Engineer Anderson asked if the Council was directing him to tell MnDOT not to pave this roadway. Mayor Grant commented that negotiations may have to be conducted with MnDOT and he understood this was a difficult situation. He requested that staff ask questions and see what is possible. He does not want Mr. Cmiel to have a water problem in the future. Assistant City Engineer Anderson asked that if it was determined that the overflow does not flow toward the house, was the Council comfortable with the current design. Councilmember Holmes commented that if MnDOT or the County can convince the Council that the current plan addressed the concerns of the homeowner she could support it. Councilmember Holden wanted to see the grading plan as well. Mayor Grant encouraged the Council to visit Mr. Cmiel's property to view the grading and ditch area. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to have the County or MnDOT provide the Council with an explanation on the ditch and trading to alleviate the Council's concerns. Councilmember Holden was worried about upsetting MnDOT and how this would impact Arden Hills in the future. However, she did support the motion amendment. Councilmember Werner did not understand why the curb and gutter was not extended in front of Mr. Cmiel's property. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 15 Councilmember Holden commented that the Council got exactly what they asked for in this proj ect. Councilmember McClung agreed. The amendment carried unanimously (5-0). Councilmember McClung indicated that he would not be supporting the motion as he is not convinced that there is a problem with the proposed ditch. The amended motion carried 4-1 (McClung opposed). MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to direct staff to not stop MnDOT from paving. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Werner referred to an article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press regarding TCAAP. Councilmember Holden discussed the dog park at Hazelnut Park. She recommended that pet owners clean up after their pets in and around the park. Mayor Grant recommended additional signage be posted reminding pet owners to clean up after their pets. He suggested that the sign be posted near the pet park. Councilmember Holden reported that the Fire Board met last week and reviewed budget proposals for 2015. At this time, it looks as though their budget could increase as much as 12.75% for the coming year. This amount may increase if a Deputy Fire Chief was hired, which would increase their budget by 15%. Mayor Grant recommended that the Council discuss the fire budget at a future work session. Councilmember Holden discussed the price for the Pulte Homes land in relation to TCAAP. She did not approve of Mark Ruff's analogy provided at the last work session. She further discussed how the proposed density on TCAAP would impact all of Arden Hills. She looked forward to discussing this further at the JDA meeting on Monday. Councilmember Holmes thanked the community for making donations to the Arden Hills Foundation. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 16 Mayor Grant was pleased that the grass was mowed around the sign at County Road E2. He requested that the sign have edging and rock to keep mowers from the sign. He questioned why the perennial garden on Valentine Road was removed. Assistant City Engineer Anderson explained that this area was redesigned to be made a part of the park. ADJOURN MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to adiourn. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Ma r Grant adjourned the regular City Council meeting at 9:44 p.m. y Dietl David Grant City Clerk Mayor