Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 04-29-2002• .�� EN HILLS MEETING MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2002, 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:05 p.m. Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Council Members Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Absent: None. • Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Accountant, Terrance Post; City Planner, Aaron Parrish; Parks and Recreation Director, Tom Moore; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; City Engineer, Greg Brown; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA City Administrator Lynch requested 3(c) Work Session minutes and 3(e) maintenance task force minutes be pulled from the approval of the Minutes. MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Rem seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the April 8, 2002, regular City Council meeting as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 11, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting B. February 25, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting C. April 15, 2002 City Council Work Session Council Member Rem requested the following changes: On February 11, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting, she requested the adjournment times be inserted. She believed the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Last page, under Notice of Meetings change the time to 7:00 p.m. On • February 25 Minutes page 6, seventh paragraph, change Apri122 to Apri120, 2002. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 2 • �J Mayor Probst requested the following changes: On February 25, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes, page 7, third paragraph from the bottom should read, "he noted he does not know how to get a�st that viewpoint." Page 8, second paragraph should read, "but he added he had only requested the parties not make unachievable conditions ap rt of their support so as to stop the program." Page 8, 4th paragraph, first sentence, should read, "Mayor Probst stated on e suggestion is to go back and amend actions already taken � the National Guard." Page 8, 4tn paragraph, second sentence delete the whole sentence. April 15, 2002 Work Session, first page, first paragraph under a.l should read, "Mayor Probst acknowledged the attendance of prospective TCAAP developer, and said the City Council a�pears ready to identify a partner." Page 3, middle of the page should read, "Council Member Grant suggested the City should uphold the vision of the Vento Plan". MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the February 1 l, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting; February 25, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting; and April 15, 2002 City Council Work Session as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Claims and Payroll. Organizational Structure Change — Appt. of O& M Unbudgeted 2001 Operating Transfers 2002 Revised TKDA Proposal Resolution No. 02-19 Memorializing Charles Peck Kid's Voting Minnesota Summer Operating Hours Lorin Hatch — PTRC Resignation Proposal: Copier-City Hall MOTION: Council Member Larson moved and Council Member Grant seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not already on the agenda. Cliff Boujeau, 1134 Hunters Court, asked if the Council would be addressing the street maintenance program at tonight's meeting. Mayor Probst replied that was item 6(F) on the agenda. i ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 3 • UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case O1-28: Catholic Charities Sign Standard Adjustment City Planner Parrish explained the applicant was requesting a sign standard adjustment from the sign code to construct a 20-foot high sign where 16 feet was required. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the adjustment based on certain findings and conditions. MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Rem seconded a motion to authorize Planning Case 01-28, Catholic Charities Sign Standard Adjustment to construct a 20-foot high sign where 16 feet was required. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Case 02-01: 4410 North Snelling, Minor Subdivision Mr. Parrish explained the applicant was requesting a minor subdivision to divide an existing 1.6- acre lot into two lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the minor subdivision request subj ect to certain conditions. Council Member Aplikowski stated she could understand the feeling about not paying the full park dedication fee, but she believed there should be some money paid. However, she did not • know what form they wanted to use to get to that fee. Council Member Larson stated the Code was pretty straightforward, and he did not see why they would proceed in a different manner for this minor subdivision. He stated he understood this was a transfer of property from the property owner to a relative, but the intent of the park dedication fee was to recognize this fee would recover some dollar amount from that property, which would benefit the new residents of Arden Hills. He stated he did not believe this subdivision should be treated differently, and if this was approved, he expressed concern this would create a future precedence. He stated there should be an appraisal of the property to find out what the current market value of the property was. Dorothy McClung, 4370 North Snelling Avenue, pointed out the parcels were joined at one time, but he was wanted to break the lots off again. She stated this was not a sale and there would not be multiple buildings built. She believed this was different than what was adopted when the Ordinance was adopted. She indicated the only market value was what the County had appraised this at. She stated it did not make sense to incur the cost of an appraisal when they were gifting the land. They were willing to pay what Mr. Parrish recommended in his report. Council Member Aplikowski asked if there was every a park dedication fee paid on this property. Ms. McClung replied there had been no park dedication fee paid. Council Member Larson asked what the difference would be between the County's assessed • value and an independent appraisal. Ms. McClung replied the homes in that neighborhood prices had varied and she did not know what the real value of the property would be. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 4 � Council Member Larson asked if the value would come in higher than the County's assessed value. Ms. McClung replied that was a reasonable expectation. Council Member Grant asked for a brief history of Chapter 11 of the City Code and how it had been applied in the past. Mr. Parrish replied he did not have the historical perspective as to that Chapter. He stated there were many different factors, but in terms of practice, when land was subdivided, that was when the park dedication fees were paid. Mayor Probst concurred with Council Member Larson that unless they identified a reason for not applying the standard, they should be looking to applying the criteria evenly under the City Code. Mr. Parrish stated the range was 6 percent to ten percent. This property was at the low end of the range. Council Member Aplikowski stated she was struggling with the fact that there was no sale of this property and because of this factor, it differentiated itself from the usual procedure. MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Rem, seconded a motion to authorize Planning Case 02-03, 4410 North Snelling, Minor • Subdivision with a$2,470.00 Park Dedication Fee, subject to the findings and conditions. Mayor Probst stated he would support the motion, but he did not agree with the justification. He stated he believed this would be a bad precedence to set. Mayor Probst offered the following friendly amendment: The reason for making qualifications from deviating from the standard was because the lot was a constituted lot and was a previously existing lot. Council Member Aplikowski accepted Mayor Probst's friendly amendment. Council Member Larson stated he would not support this motion. Council Member Grant clarified the amendment still left the sum of $2,470.00 for the Park Dedication Fee. Mayor Probst replied that was correct. Motion carried as amended (4-1 Larson). C. Planning Case 02-05: Guidant, Site Plan Review/Variance Request Mr. Parrish explained applicant was requesting a site plan review, setback variance, and height variance to facilitate an 110,900 square foot expansion of Guidant Building F(former Control Data Facility). The proposed plan also incorporated a skyway to existing Building F. The � Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan subject to certain conditions. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 5 • Mayor Probst stated it seemed inappropriate to proceed with a plat that vacated a street until the traffic analysis was completed and they knew what the implications were going to be. He stated they needed to proceed carefully that they did not approve more than they should. He asked if the skyway was part of this request. If it was, and they were not in a position to vacate the road, it would need to be built with the proper clearances. Mr. Parrish replied the intent was to proceed in a manner that was independent of other actions. He stated they would just plat the building. He indicated this could proceed as a stand-alone, independent project. With respect to the skyway, he stated what they attempted to do was if it was vacated, this would be a non-issue, but if it was not vacated, there would need to be an easement issued. Mayor Probst stated the two issues subject to review were the setback and the height, which was open to some interpretation. Mr. Parrish replied with respect to the height issue, it was consistent with the building. Council Member Grant stated this was clearly part of the larger plan for Guidant and he indicated he was supportive of the overall project, as well as this proposal. Council Member Larson asked why staff did not put in the conditions that were attached to the recommendation regarding the building materials being brick masonry. Mr. Parrish replied that • was what had been submitted and it would be in keeping with the site plan and therefore, it was not necessary to put this as a recommendation. He stated it was required that the development be in conformance with the site plan that had been submitted. Jud Brasch and John Larson, RSB Architect, stated they had submitted some elevations for the building, and it was their intent to select materials that would be compatible to the existing buildings on the campus. Council Member Grant asked if they were okay with the eight conditions. Mr. Larson and Mr. Brasch replied they agreed to the conditions. Bill Frank, 1228 Wynridge Drive, stated in general he agreed with this development, but he was concerned that there was no evidence to support the level of development proposed was justified. He stated he was not opposed to this specific development, but he was opposed to the process thus far. Jim Paulet ,1285 Wyncrest Court, stated he believed Guidant has been a good neighbor and they were providing jobs to the community, but the neighbors had concerns regarding some aspects of the development plan. He stated they were concerned about the size of the buildings and the ramps, as well as the scope of the project. He expressed concern about the traffic issues. He stated they also had drainage concerns. He stated he believed they should slow down some and the neighbors should be involved with some of the planning. He stated it seemed that all the • residents doing were reacting to the planning and he requested the residents be included in this ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 6 . • n � planning process. He stated the residents were concerned that they were going to also lose the tennis courts. Pat Kern, 1230 Wyncrest Court, expressed concern about the variance of 23 feet and that they should have the building at 55 feet as required by Code. He stated it appeared Guidant was making the assumption that the road would be vacated. He stated Guidant was a good neighbor. Brad Kressler, 1251 Wyncrest Court, asked if they had looked if the new road would be compatible to Fernwood being lost. Mayor Probst stated the City had made a commitment either directly or indirectly with regard to what their anticipated plans were and they would give the residents the opportunity to comment about the plans. He stated this was not an approval of the vacation of Fernwood. He stated he believed the Training Center could be built on that site. He indicated he was comfortable with the approval of the Training Center site plan and the variances as approved, but stated they did have work to do still with any street vacation. Council Member Larson stated the residents had concerns about the height of the buildings, but he believed this building was fairly consistent with the other building, and he believed this building was as far away from the neighborhood as possible. He stated he would support this proposal. Council Member Aplikowski stated one of the concerns she was hearing was how would this impact Cummings Park. Mr. Parrish stated this was a misconception that was out there at this point, but he assured this was in no way related to Cummings Park. Going forward it would alter access if the vacation proceeded forward, but in terms of parking, that issue had been resolved by the Parks Department. He stated there was a solid easement in terms of parking, so it was unlikely the tennis courts would be eliminated. There was sufficient parking available. MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Grant seconded a motion to authorize Planning Case 02-05, Guidant, Site Plan Review/Variance Request subj ect to findings and conditions. Council Member Rem asked for clarification on the platting process was in the process of preparing their Master PUD and they were their parcels into one parcel. He stated this was a few months out stated this information was also available on the City's website. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). D. Planning Case 02-06: Pilgrim House, Special Use Permit . Mr. Parrish replied Guidant looking to consolidate all of , at a minimum. Mr. Parrish Mr. Parrish explained applicant was requesting an amendment to their existing Special Use Permit to allow a daycare facility at Pilgrim House. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the requesting finding the proposed use of the Church was an accessory operation that ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 7 . would be allowed if the Church was running the daycare, but not when a commercial daycare facility was being operated. Council Member Aplikowski stated he was relieved staff had located in the City Code how daycare facilities would be addressed in Houses of Worship. Allen Carstens, 748 Valentine, Spring Lake Park, stated he had been a member of the Church for 20 years and indicated that 75 percent of Minnesota mothers work and all of them at one time or another are dependant upon daycare. He stated there were two types of daycare, the large daycare facilities and the in-home facilities. He stated there was a gap in daycare facilities and he believed this proposal would fill that gap as well as fulfilling a community service. He stated this facility would be learning oriented and he believed Pilgrim House could provide a community service by offering this type of a facility. He stated they would work with the neighbors to see if the minimum licensing requirements were enough, or if they would need to have more than the minimum in terms of fencing and sound barriers. He stated the neighbors had been concerned about the noise, and they were willing to work with the neighbors regarding noise. He stated the children would be supervised at all times. Mayor Probst asked if Pilgrim House would agree to an extension if necessary because the Planning Commission did not have sufficient information when they made their recommendations. He stated it would be his preference this return to the Planning Commission • for further discussion and consideration. Mr. Parrish replied the Planning Commission vote was close and there may be further issues they would want to look at. Council Member Larson noted that the Julie Carlson letter stated while she wanted to eventually have 20 children, she believed the limit would be 12 children due to space issues. He suggested amending the special use to this number of children up to 15 children. Mr. Parrish stated the State/County would regulate how many children could be in this type of a facility, which would override any City regulations. The City Attorney stated it was up to the Council to examine the impacts this type of a facility would have on the residents. He stated it was appropriate that the City attempt to limit what they could. Council Member Aplikowski stated given the new information, she believed this should go back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Jean Hoffineister, 1201 Karth Lake Drive, expressed concerns about the increased activity, noise, traffic, and the commercial aspect of this type of a facility. She stated it did not appear this was a Church run activity and expressed concern that this would be a commercial business instead. She stated the play area was directly on their back lot line and expressed concern that this was too close to their property. She asked if they were now permitted to have this daycare, would there be a limit on the number of children. � ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 g . Julie Carlson, Daycare Director, stated the reason she wanted to ask for 20 children was because some children needed to be accepted on a part-time business. She indicated if she got 10 full time children she would be happy, but there was a possibility that there may be 10 part-time children who only came a couple of days a week. She stated at any given time, she did not expect to have over 15 children. She stated having a limit of 20 children, would also give her the opportunity to grow at some time in the future. She noted the State/County licensing would regulate how many children she could legally have and it was a very complicated process. She indicated this was a very structured program and the children would be supervised at all times. She stated they were willing to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns regarding noise and privacy issues. Council Member Grant asked if they had 20 children and they were half time, which would really be 10 students. He stated the number of children would drive what they approved. Mr. Parrish stated the number of children at any one particular time could be a condition. Council Member Rem asked staff to research what the State licensing guidelines for daycares were. She agreed this should be sent back to the Planning Commission for their further review. Council Member Aplikowski stated she did not have a problem approving this tonight, but she believed the Planning Commission should look at this again. City Attorney stated if the Council wanted to extend this they needed to put it in writing and • needed to obtain applicant's permission to extend. MOTION: Council Member Larson moved a motion to refer this back to the Planning Commission to consider the new information, and Council's discussion and this be put in writing to the applicant. Mr. Carstens stated if they could not be open by June 1, 2001, the children in the current daycare facility would need to find a new place to go. Mr. Parrish stated the only item that may be difficult to get at this time would be State information requested, but this could go to the Planning Commission at their next meeting. He asked if the applicant needed a land use approval in place prior to the State's licensing approval. Mr. Carstens stated the existing daycare facility in another church was closing May 30, 2002, and it was the intent that these children would go to the Pilgrim House daycare. Ms. Carlson stated she was unable to get the State's approval until the City had decided to allow her to have this daycare. She also stated she did not want to invest in supplies, furniture, etc. if the City did not allow her to run this daycare facility. Mr. Parrish noted that the actual public hearing had already been held and it was not typical to renotice the public hearing. He stated this would simply go back to the Planning Commission for � their further recommendation with the new information. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 9 • Mayor Probst suggested the motion be withdrawn and the Planning Commission review this at their next meeting, and it come back to the Council at the May 13 meeting. Council Member Larson withdrew his motion. Mayor Probst asked the applicant for an extension of seven (7) days. Mr. Carstens agreed to this extension. Ms. Carlson stated her concern was that she would lose the families she had hoped to take with her to the new facility. Mayor Probst stated she could request they take a vote tonight, but they were required by State law to act on this tonight, unless they received an extension. Ms. Carlson agreed to an extension. MOTION: Council Member Larson moved and Council Member Aplikowski seconded a motion to continue this matter to the next City Council Meeting. Motion adopted unanimously (5-0). Mayor Probst requested Item F be heard before Item E. F. Accept 2002 PMP Feasibility Report and Authorize Preparation of Plans and � Speci�cations. City Engineer Brown, summarized the proposed project, the discussions held at the neighborhood meetings, and his recommendations and costs. Mr. Boujeau, stated when he received the letter with the City's recommendations, he noted errors on the report. He stated there was no homeowner's association on these two cul-de-sacs and he did not understand this comment. He indicated he was not in favor of the road being reduced of its present radius. It stated that while it was a nice gesture to offer the homeowner's the opportunity to have their driveways done, he believed it was the City's responsibility to do the streets and only the streets. He asked why the overlay estimate went from $50,000.00 to $63,900.00 in just a couple on months. He asked what the 26 percent cost was. He asked why the quantities of bituminous differed, and why was there different square yards used. He stated the size of these two streets should be done for the same amount of money. He asked about the sod price. He asked why the sub grade excavation for Waldon Place was not smaller. He asked about the miscellaneous removal cost. He believed this was excessive. He asked what $2,000.00 would buy in the way of traffic control if used in other areas of the City. Mayor Probst asked if his concerns materially changed the outcome. Mr. Boujeau stated it may not change it, but he believed that something like this should be as accurate as possible before it was sent out to the residents for review. � ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 10 • Mr. Boujeau indicated with no maintenance on the street, the street had lasted 20 plus years, and he indicated any street should last this long, especially if it was maintained. He asked the Council consider this. He stated he the opposed the 28-foot reconstruction. Brenda Golsman, 1146 Waldon Place, indicated she liked the wider street. She stated the street damage was not done by frost, but by no maintenance being done by the City. She noted if the City had properly maintained this street, it would not be necessary for this to be reconstructed at this time. She stated they did not have a lot of traffic and she believed if the City had maintained this street in the first place, this would not be necessary. She asked that this project be considered when Benton Way was reconstructed in the future. Carol Shea, 1140 Hunters Court, stated she believed something did need to be done with the cul- de-sacs. She stated she purchased her house because of the lot. She asked what affect this proposal would have on the pond. Mr. Brown stated the pond was under private easement. Mr. Post replied the issue of the private ponds had come up in 1995 and this had not been addressed satisfactorily at that time so this was still an issue. Resident, 1141 Hunters Court, stated he would like to see this project done when Benton's Way was reconstructed. He stated the road would last until Benton Way was done in five to seven years. He stated he would like the whole neighborhood be done at the same time. • Mr. Moore stated he had received two calls from residents, Laura Visa, 1149 Waldon Place, stating she was in favor of the total 28 foot reconstruct and Mr. Dennis Monson, 1144 Waldon Place who also stated he was in favor of the 28 foot reconstruct. Resident, 1135 Hunters Court, stated she preferred the 32-foot road width, but if they did go with the 28-foot reconstruct, she requested a surmountable curb. Council Member Larson asked for the implications of a 28-foot versus a 32-foot road width. Mr. Brown summarized the implications. MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Larson seconded a motion to accept the 2002 PMP Feasibility Report. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Council Member Aplikowski stated she had listened to the residents regarding having only mill and overlay done at this time. However, it seemed historically that as soon as this decision was made something bad would happen to the road and it was a difficult thing to weight this. Council Member Larson stated he was in favor of going forward with the reconstruction of the 28 feet. He stated he understood why the residents wanted to go with a wider street, but this • would cost all of the taxpayers' further money. He stated a narrower street would also calm traffic even though this was a cul-de-sac. He stated unless there was a persuasive argument for ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 11 • the wider street, he would vote for a 28 foot street. He stated the residents in attendance tonight were only a small representation of all of the residents in the neighborhood. He stated he was in agreement with a surmountable curb. Council Member Grant stated this was a difficult decision. He stated he would have to agree with the 28-foot road because of the cost. He also agreed with the surmountable curb. Council Member Rem stated she understood at the last meeting, the residents were in favor of a 28-foot street and due to the cost difference, she would recommend it staying as it was. However, she stated if the resident's wanted the wider street, she would agree to this, and she did not believe the cost difference would be that great. Council Member Grant asked how many residents preferred the 28-foot versus the 32-foot road. He indicated given the nature of the show of hands, he changed his preference to 32 feet. He stated there was a clear majority for the additional street width. He stated he was not convinced it was that much more cost for the City to go with the 32-foot street. Council Member Larson stated he was not comfortable with the resident's voting on this type of an issue. He did not believe the vote was representative of all 16 residents living on the cul-de- sacs. He stated he believed they had an obligation to represent the City as a whole and not just certain residents. He stated the 32-foot street was extra money coming from other residents. � Mayor Probst stated he believed the appropriate approach was to go with the 28-foot street. He stated the sub-base was not adequate right now and if they did a mill and overlay, they could not guarantee how long it would last. He believed the reconstruct was the appropriate approach. He did support the surmountable curb. MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Rem seconded a motion to authorize a reconstruct of Hunters Court and Walden Place with a 32- foot wide road and surmountable curb. Council Member Aplikowski stated she was prepared to go with the 28-foot, but if the resident's wanted this, then the City should listen. She stated at this time, there is no drastic reason not to give the residents what they wanted. Council Member Larson the 28-foot width would reduce the cost and reiterated that there was not a representative view of the residents tonight. He also stated less street coverage would create less runoff into the ponds. He stated these were good reasons to reduce the size of the street. Motion carried (3-2 Larson and Probst). E. TCAAP Developer Discussion � Mayor Probst asked Council how they wanted to handle this discussion. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 12 . MOTION: Council Member Larson moved and Council Member Aplikowski seconded for discussion that they go forward with the negotiation of a Predevelopment Agreement with the consortium they had talked about at the Work Session with working with Centex/Glenn Rehbein Companies proposal and Opus Homes being a possible runner-up. Council Member Aplikowski stated she was apprehensive to make a decision tonight. She stated she believed this was premature and Council had not discussed their vision for this. She stated they still needed Congressional approval of this land. She stated Centex was not her first choice. She preferred Opus as her first choice. She stated they had not identified how they felt about this whole process. Mayor Probst stated the selection tonight would simply get a partner in place that would help them move forward with the potential transfer and the environmental clean-up. He stated they had a starting point with the Vento Plan and they had a commitment to move forward honoring that plan, but the fundamental challenge before them was the issues of land transfer and environmental clean-up. He stated he supported proceeding along the path of the motion made. He stated this motion would not necessarily tie the City into only using one contractor/developer. Council Member Rem stated her preference for Opus being her the first choice and Centex being her second. • Council Member Grant stated Centex was his first choice, however he believed Opus made a better proposal than initially presented. He stated both were very strong players and he liked Opus' focus on the retail/office environment, as well as a residential aspect to the development. He stated Centex had the environmental aspect on line, but stated they were more residential than Opus' proposal. He stated he would like to see the Council to make this decision tonight. Mayor Probst stated it was important to him to understand where everyone was at and he hoped they would move forward tonight, but this was the biggest decision Council would ever have to make that would affect the entire community and they needed to make a good decision and put together a team that could help them get this done. Council Member Aplikowski stated she disagreed with Mayor Probst's comment about this being the biggest decision. She stated the residents everyday living would go on as is whether this was approved or not. She stated this did not have the same impact for her as it did for the Mayor and this was part of her hesitancy of moving forward. She stated she would have liked to have had more discussions as a Council to come to some agreement. She stated the reason she chose Opus was because she believed Opus presented the better proposal, but she believed she was just uncomfortable making any decision tonight. Mayor Probst stated he believed the Army was looking at disposing of the property and it was in the best interest of the City to be a part of this. � U ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 13 . Council Member Rem stated she agreed this was a very important decision for the City and she felt very strongly that Opus was the better choice. She stated Opus seemed to deal very well with this site regarding the environmental issue, other than just getting it cleaned up. She stated she wanted to see something more thoughtful go into this process. Council Member Aplikowski stated one of her hesitancies was that other options might not have been explored. Mayor Probst replied there was expense that a proposed developer would incur, which was greater than the City funds were able to incur. He stated whichever team they choose, they may well wish to reach into the other teams for their assistance as well. Council Member Larson stated all four of the parties that made presentations and proposals could satisfy the City's needs. He stated they did not have a proposal out that companies were responding to. He stated they did not have a dollar amount or the specifics as to what was going to happen, but it was their job to sift through the in formation they did have and come up with the best conclusions they could. He stated he chose Centex because Arden Hills was basically residential and he liked the idea that Centex had a strong residential development. He stated he was not enthusiastic about having a large commercial development on that property. He stated he hoped they would end up with a smaller commerciaUindustrial development. He stated they did the best job of putting together the environmental concerns and he stated clean up of the site was a very important aspect of this project. He stated he thought Centex also knew how to work with Congress in getting this project dealt with. He stated Centex did the best job of communicating � with Council after presentations were made. He stated this indicated Centex clearly wanted this project and they had a strong interest in doing this. He stated they needed to make a decision tonight. Council Member Grant reminded Council that both Opus and Glenn Rehbein Companies were local companies. He stated they both had an element of being locally based. Mayor Probst believed Council Member Larson had summarized many of the key issues and reiterated that the many hours he had spent over the last 10-14 years on this project, and particular on the time spent last month on the Congressional delegation, he could understate the environmental clean-up issues. He stated it was important to use a team that understood the clean-up process and the demonstrated capability to deal with that issue on an on-going basis. He stated Centex had the ability to deal with the clean-up issues. He urged the Council's support on the motion made. Motion carried (3-2 Rem and Aplikowski). MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved seconded by Council Member Rem to continue the Council meeting past 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). n U ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 14 • ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS A. MnDOT Presentation regarding 35W Road Construction Mr. Frank Papko, MNDoT, updated Council on the 35W road construction project. He explained the situation that there was a failure of the sealant that was placed on a grout seal in both the north and southbound lanes. He stated this caused considerable congestion in the afternoon hours of April 18. He indicated there would be a 2-inch mill and overlay to get the grout seal out of the road. He stated this was a six-mile stretch of road. He indicated every evening between 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. between Highway 36 and 694 northbound the freeway would be shut down completely and the traffic detoured. He stated they would then do the southbound lane. Their intent was to mill off the road as soon as possible and then do the overlay. He stated during the rest of the day, with the exception of a three-hour rush hour, there would be lane restrictions. They have given the contractor 15 days to get this done. He stated there was an additional 15 days after that to do miscellaneous work. He stated northbound should be complete by fishing opener on Friday, and then they would work on the southbound lanes after that. B. Window Treatments Mr. Lynch stated staff had received a bid for window treatments for the City Hall, including the Council Chambers. He indicated they had spoken with several vendors, but only Aero Drapery made an effort to serve the City's needs. The cost for the window treatments, including • installation was $8,169.62. Staff recommended the window treatments be installed in the City Administrator's office, the west open office area, the Deputy Clerk's office, the second floor west windows, and the Council Chambers. Council Member Aplikowski stated it was disturbing this had not been dealt with during the design of the City Hall. Council Member Larson requested staff check with the architects as to the color scheme of the blinds. Council Member Aplikowski stated she did not think the blinds needed to be motorized as this would add a maintenance issue. MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Aplikowski seconded a motion to purchase Vision Shades from Aero Drapery for the City Administrator's office, the west open office area, the Deputy Clerk's office, the second floor west windows, and the Council Chambers for a price of $8,169.62, including installation. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). � ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 15 i th C. League of Minnesota Cities 89 Annual Conference Mr. Lynch reminded Council of the League of Minnesota Cities Conference and requested they turn in their registration forms if they wanted to attend this Conference. Mayor Probst encouraged Council Members to attend this Conference. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Larson asked staff to develop further information regarding the issue regarding the County Road E Banners posted between Snelling and Lexington. He asked if they were going to be taken down and something else be put in their place. He reminded Council they still as a City did not have a Housing Maintenance Code and requested staff look into this issue and make a recommendation to the Council at the next meeting. Mayor Probst stated the 35W corridor commission had been looking at a housing maintenance program and making recommendations. Mr. Parrish replied that was correct and once the subdivision Ordinance was approved, this would be the next Ordinance they would be looking at. Council Member Aplikowski stated Ramsey Co. League of Local Governments had its meeting last Thursday regarding how School Boards and Cities could work together. She stated this was a • very informative meeting. Council Member Aplikowski presented the tentative schedule and budget for the Day in the Park. She stated they were projecting a$36,000.00 budget. She stated they did not have a Day in the Park Fund and she requested Council for this fund in the amount of $7,500.00. She stated they did have letters out to businesses for donations. MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Rem seconded a Motion to adoption of the budget for the day in the park on June 22, 2002. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mayor Probst requested staff come back to Council with potential donators to this event. Council Member Aplikowski requested a future Work Session discussion of the Day in the Park event if this was going to be an annual event. Council Member Aplikowski stated the City emblem would look nice on the bottom of the Council dais. Council Member Grant asked Maintenance/Operation Supervisor's job description sent to Labor Relations and asked for ran update. Mr. Lynch replied all positions in the City were sent to Labor Relations and the staff had made revisions based on the Labor Relation's recommendations, which had been sent back to Labor Relations. They had not received a response back yet from � Labor Relations. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 16 • Council Member Grant requested the Maintenance Facility Task Force meetings be put on the Tentative Meeting Schedule listed on the agenda. Council Member Grant congratulated Mr. Moore on this new position. Council Member Rem stated the Newsletter Committee was meeting Wednesday morning to review the May issue. She stated there was a Spring Clean up scheduled for May 18 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and they were looking for volunteers to assist at this event. Mayor Probst stated the Minnesota Design Center was holding a meeting tomorrow night and encouraged the Council Members to attend. Mayor Probst suggested Council enter into negotiations with Chesapeake if they were still interested in disposing of this piece of property and requested staff move forward with a proposal for the next Council meeting. Mr. Parrish stated Chesapeake had indicated they were probably not interested at this point. ADJOURN MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Rem seconded a motion to • cess t lar meeting at 10:26 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Dennis Probst Mayor Joe Lynch City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, May 13, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council chambers. �