Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 01-31-1994 I I (t I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I " I MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNcn MEETING January 31, 1994 7:30 P.M. - New Brighton City Hall CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Sather called to order the City Council meeting at 7:30 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, Dale Hicks, Paul Malone, and Dennis Probst. Also present were: City Accountant, Terry Post; Community Planning Coordinator, Brian Fritsinger; Public Works Superintendent, Dan Winkel; Park & Recreation Director, Cynthia Severtson, City Administrator, Dorothy Person; and Recording Secretary, Renee Kaulfuss. ADOPT AGENDA Probst requested to move Item 5a to 7g to allow for discussion of the topic. Ms. Person requested to correct the date on Item 5g to show a date of January 10, 1994. MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Probst, to adopt the January 31, 1994 agenda as revised. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUANCE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING REGARD:rNG 1993 ARDEN PLACE DRAINAGE DlPROVEMENT PROJECT and PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL & COST ALLOCATION IN THE MATTER OF 1993 ARDEN PLACE DRAINAGE DlPROVEMENT PROJECT Mayor Sather advised the Council that the cost sharing agreement between Noyed, Bauer, Bongard and the City has not been finalized as of this date. Staff will continue to work with all parties to resolve the issues that remain outstanding. Mayor Sather commented that since the cost sharing agreement for the Arden Place private/public drainage improvement had not yet been finalized, it would be prudent to continue both public hearings that had been scheduled to take place this evening. I I ~ I I I I I I .. I I I I I I I , I Arden Hills Council 2 January 31., 1.994 City Administrator Person informed the Council that due to the extreme cold weather experienced over the past two weeks, the contractor has been unable to start the project, The contractor will get started just as soon as the weather cooperates. MOTION: Probst moved, seconded by Aplikowski, to continue both the public hearing regarding assessments and the public hearing regarding the final assessment roll and cost allocation in the matter of the 1.993 Arden Place Drainage Improvement Project until 7:30 p.m., February 28, 1.994. Motion carried unanimously (5-0) . APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES Councilmember Hicks asked that the motion he made directing staff to write a letter to St. Paul Turners, Inc. be revised to read: "The letter should request that St. Paul Turners provide a proposal as to how they will comply with the requirement before the end of their contract." Probst moved, seconded by Aplikowski, to approve the minutes of the January 1.0, 1.994 Worksession Meeting, and the corrected January 1.0, 1.994 Regular Council Meeting as prepared. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Hicks moved, seconded by Malone, to approve the Consent Calendar as revised, Items b thru h, and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. Motion carried unanimously (5- 0) . b. Approve Resolution #94-1.6, Accepting the 1.993 Pay Equity Report, and approve submission of the report to the State Department of Employee Relations. c. Approve Resolution #94-1.0, Amending Resolution #93-61., establishing an expanded Economic Development Committee. d. Approve Resolution #94-1.1., Adopting a Flexible Spending Account: reimbursements for Out-of- Pocket medical expenses, health care premium and daycare expenses; and the Administrative Services contract with DCA, Inc. e. Approve Resolution #94-1.2, Revising Mechanical Fee Schedule. f. Approve list of 1.994 Business license renewals. g. Approve List of Claims and Payroll. 1 1 , 1 1 1 I I I .. 1 I I I I I I I" I Arden Hills Council 3 January 31, 1994 h. Approve Resolution #94-17, Support of the application for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) by Northwest Youth & Family Services (NYFS). PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS CASE #93-15 REZONING REOUEST RYDER STUDENT TRANSPORTATION/RECO Community Planning Coordinator Fritsinger outlined the discussions that took place at both the November 1993 and January 1994 Planning Commission meetings. In addition, he referred to the various memos provided in previous packets outlining the discussion topics and their outcome. Fritsinger noted that the City has received two petitions over the past couple of weeks. The petitions were provided to the Council for their review. Fritsinger noted the Planning Commission recommended to Council to deny the rezoning. Secondly, a motion was made to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect a low density residential use at 1901 West County Road F, and the property remain zoned R-1. The Land Use Chart be amended to create a new use "Bus Terminal" and under an R-1 district bus terminals be allowed by SUP. Section 11,D of the Ordinance be amended to define a Bus Terminal as a building or space engaged in the transportation and activities associated with the transportation of students within the local school district, and that under Section X, Special provisions, H. Bus Terminals be added with the following requirements: a bus terminal site must be located within three hundred feet (300) of an existing school; any terminal located in Arden Hills must have a contract for service with Mounds View Public School District #621; a bus terminal site must be located adjacent to both an arterial and collector road and have direct access to one of these roads. The motion did not carry as it was a tie vote (3-3). Fritsinger explained the bus terminal definition was different than the SUP where specific conditions are set to limit the propery's expansion. He further noted that if the request for the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and rezoning were to be denied, the City Council may I I , I I I I I I .. I I I I I I I I" I Arden Hills Council 4 January 31, 1994 desire to encourage the closure of this use by amortizing its operation over the next 5 years; or a longer period of time as determined by the Planning Commission and then recommended to the Council. Councilmember Probst stated he favored alternative #1 which is to approve an amendment to the Land Use Chart and create a new use "Bus Terminal" and permit it within the R-1 district by SUP, and include the addition to Section X, Special Provisions, of the ordinance as outlined in the Planners report of November 22, 1993. Probst further stated he was not in favor of amortizing because of a possible City financial exposure. Many key components are undetermined at this time which include the period of time, depreciation and relocation costs. Mayor Sather noted there are several options to consider. MOTION: Probst moved, seconded by Hicks to first deny the request for Rezoning as it is inappropriate for this location; and second to approve the Special Use Permit. Mayor Sather commented that he has a concern that although the applicants were denied the request for rezoning, the applicants did not formally appeal that decision to this body. If Council takes action on the motion that is before the bench at this time, we are limiting the due process option to the applicants through a negotiating process whereby zoning may become or change in zoning may become either a) a preferred alternative or b) the preferred alternative. By the Council taking action on the rezoning at this time, it would eliminate the opportunity for the applicants for appearing for a minimum period of six months. As a housekeeping measure, the ratification of the Planning Commission's denial request for rezoning may under normal circumstances be appropriate, however, under the circumstances before the Council at this time, the Council may in fact be taking away a due process option should the applicant choose to exercise this option. MOTION: Hicks moved to withdraw his second to the motion. Probst moved to withdraw his motion for the both the Rezoning and Special Use Permit. Discussion followed regarding the Planning Commission'S tie vote to the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mayor Sather outlined the options of either a termination agreement through amortization, or the Special Use Permit option which could allow the use as it is today to become I I ~ I I I I I I .. I I I I I I I Ie I Arden Hills Council 5 January 31, 1994 a conforming use under a Special Use Permit. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she would like to see the bus company remain at this location by creating very stringent conditions as part of the Special Use Permit. She further noted it is not fair for a business to go out of business simply because the neighbors don't like the situation. Aplikowski moved, seconded by Probst to amend the Land Use Plan, Page 25, of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect a low density residential rather than industrial use for 1901 West County Road F. To amend Section V, E, Land Use Chart, and create a new use "Bus Terminal" and permit it within the R-1 district by Special Use Permit. Section II, D- definitions: should also be amended to include a new definition for a "Bus Terminal". A bus terminal shall be defined as a building or space engaged in the transportation and activities associated with the transportation of students within the local school district. In addition to the requirements set forth in the ordinance, bus terminals are subject to the following requirements: 1) A bus terminal site must be located within three hundred (300) feet of an existing school; 2) Any terminal located in Arden Hills must have a contract for service with the Mounds View School District #621; 3) A bus terminal site must be located adjacent to both an arterial and collector road and have direct access to one of these roads. This motion is subject to all parties reaching agreement on the conditions for the Special Use Permit and the subsequent approval of the SUP by the Planning commission and City Council. Discussion of the motion followed and Councilmember Malone asked for clarification because we can not issue a Special Use Permit in an R-1 district for a bus terminal because it is not a permitted use. Councilmember Malone clarified that is why the Council was considerating an amendment to the R-1 zoning to allow for a bus terminal under a Special Use Permit. MOTION: Councilmember Malone asked for clarification in that under the Special Use Permit there is no expiration date. The Special Use Permit would go with the property, and the bus terminal would remain a permanent fixture. Fritsinger responded that the Special Use Permit is recorded with the property, not the tenant, and as long as the conditions are met the permit would last I I ~ I I I I I I - I I I I I I I ~ I Arden Hills Council 6 January 31, 1994 indefinitely; unless the use has ceased or been discontinued for a period of ninety consecutive days. councilmember Hicks stated this is a difficult decision, however, he would not support the motion. Hicks further stated he would support the termination agreement. Mayor Sather noted that legal counsel states the minimum amortization schedule is 5 years, and there are conditions that could be incorporated into the amortization agreement including the City having to pay back the property holder for improvements made to the property. The agreement could also include potential costs for lost revenue, and other costs yet undiscovered, and unclarified or it could include nothing depending on the agreement. Discussion followed relating to the positive and negative effects of a termination (amortization) agreement. Councilmember Hicks stated that in terms of advantages versus disadvantages, he feels the long range best interest for the City is to remove the current use of this property. Hicks further stated that this business is not compatible with the R-1 district, however, one could argue that the bus terminal was established at this location prior to some of the residential development that is currently located in this area. Hicks further stated that the area has expanded and developed, and there is this conflict with odors and traffic which is a real negative. Hicks agrees that the negative from the City'S point of view would be if the termination contract would become an expense to the City. If this would happen, Hicks would want a sufficient length of time to allow the owners to find another location, such that it would not cost them or the City unduly. Councilmember Malone stated if the City would amend the zoning ordinance to allow a Special Use Permit, the City could regulate the site and allow for this use to continue. The City could buy the site, however, the City does not have the funds available to buy the site. Malone further commented the problem with amortization is how does the Council set a time limit to coincide with the cost factor. Councilmember Malone noted that a termination agreement would act no differently than a Special Use Permit in regards to conditions that have to be placed and agreed upon. The paving of the lot, fuel tanks, clean up and other needed improvements could all be conditions in the termination agreement, however, the City would have to I I , I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I Arden Hills Council 7 January 31, 1994 review the depreciation issue and how long would it take for Ryder to balance out the use of the improvements. Councilmember Probst stated he is very wary of a termination agreement as this use has been in place for over 30 years, and for whatever reasons, the City has not required this property to remain in an" acceptable" condition. Probst further stated a Special Use Permit is needed and if modification of the zoning ordinance is required, it should be considered. The City and staff should reach an acceptable set of conditions that the community can agree upon. If this cannot be agreed upon, only then should the City deal with the termination process. Hearing no further discussion, Mayor Sather reminded the Council of the motion made by Councilmember Aplikowski which is still on the floor. After repeating the motion currently on the floor, Councilmember Probst seconded the motion. Motion carried (4-1 [Hicks voted nay; all others voted aye.]). CONTINUANCE - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT APPEAL - ARDEN VIEW TOWNHOME ASSOCIATION Councilmember Probst commented that while he was reviewing the rate structure for the R-3 district he noted that, effectively, this development is being charged twice because of townhome density. Probst noted the ordinance is currently set up at various per acre charges for various zoning categories, and in fact that the per acre charge is partially an attempt to reflect that as you move up in the zoning classifications you have a higher level of hard surface areas and additional runoff. Probst continued that particularly in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, the charges are based on theoretical density. The concern is that the per unit cost for the R-3 development, is not based on the theoretical density permitted by the zoning ordinance. The first billing was prepared noting that the total acreage charge was divided by the actual number of units in the R-3 properties within the community. The fact remains that because the actual density is less than what the ordinance permits, there is actually a benefit in that they are not producing as much runoff as they would if they were developed to the full density as permitted by the ordinance. Probst suggests that Council ask staff to go back and recalculate the rate based on theoretical permitted densities. I I. I I I 1 1 I I I. I 1 1 I I 1 1 I. I Arden Hills Council 8 January 31, 1994 City Accountant Post stated there is a reduction in the rate if the City would assume a density of eight (8) R-3 units per acre as the City believes is permitted by the ordinance. This would produce a quarterly charge of $4.06 per Arden View townhome unit compared to $3.98 for a R-1 district household. On this basis, R-3 units would pay a 2% higher quarterly fee than R-1 property units. Councilmember Probst stated that, theoretically this development could have additional units placed at this location, however, it may not be approved at such time it would be brought before the Planning Commission. In addition, Councilmember Probst stated that the R-3 and R-4 classifications should also be reviewed and there should be some differential between these two district classifications. MOTION I Probst moved, seconded by Hicks to ask staff to review the calculations and formalize in the form of a resolution for the Council to take action on at a future Council meeting. Motion carried (4-0-1 [Malone abstained; all others voted aye.]) DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING RELATING TO THE 1994 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT: AND REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION #94-13. RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MATTER OF THE 1994 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Councilmember Malone noted that on the revised Resolution #94-13, the total cost amount was changed to reflect a cost of $394,800. Public Works Superintendent Winkel explained that the original resolution was drafted with the cost amount anticipated which was prior to the actual feasibility report being completed. The actual cost will be $394,800. Councilmember Malone questioned why Amble is being required to be a 9 ton road. Winkel stated he would look into this and report back to the Council at a later date. Winkel made note that there were two (2) resolutions prepared for consideration for the Public Hearing. As Engineer Terry Maurer will not be able to attend the February meeting, the Council will need to decide if they warrant it necessary for him to be in attendance at the Public Hearing. Discussion followed and Council concurred they preferred that the Engineer be present. I I- I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I- I Arden Hills Council 9 January 31, 1994 MOTION: Hicks moved, seconded by Aplikowski to receive the feasibility study, adopt resolution #94-13, and order the Public Hearing for March 14, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION #94-14. ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IN THE MATTER OF THE 1994 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MOTION: Hicks moved, seconded by Malone to adopt Resolution #94-14, ordering preparation of plans and Specifications in the Matter of the 1994 Pavement Maintenance Improvement project. DISCUSSION AND APPOINTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councilmember Aplikowski stated she has tried several times to reach Mr. Egge and Mr. Stoddard. She spoke with Mr. Egge's secretary who assured her he would like to be appointed on this committee. She will continue to try and reach Mr. Stoddard. MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Hicks to appoint Charles Stoddard and Trygve Egge to the Economic Development Committee. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). REVIEW REOUEST FOR A CLASS A PREMISES PERMIT AT POT 0' GOLD BINGO HALL FROM CHURCH OF ST. MARY ROMANIAN ORTHODOX MOTION: Hicks moved, seconded by Malone to adopt Resolution #94-15, approving a Bingo Hall License Renewal Application for a Class A Premises Permit at Pot O'Gold Bingo Hall from the Church of St. Mary Romanian Orthodox Church. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL MONETARY LIMITS OF LMCIT EXCESS LIABILITY COVERAGE. Mayor Sather noted that Councilmember Probst had requested this item be removed from Consent Calendar to allow for discussion. Councilmember Probst noted that the choice of waiving or not waiving the liability is not clear and would like clarification. Ms. Person stated that it has been past practice of the City to waive the liability. The League Trust does not make any recommendations either way to cities. as this is a very controversial issue. The I ~ I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I Ie I Arden Hills Council 10 January 31, 1994 League Trust does not guarantee total protection to a city, Councilmember Malone stated you cannot buy the insurance and not waive the statute. The City can insure itself up to the statutory limit, however, by buying insurance beyond the statutory limit of $600,000, the City is accepting liability beyond the statutory limitation of $600,000. If the City would insure itself up to the $600,000, this is the maximum amount the City presumably can be deemed to pay. MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Aplikowski to authorization of $1,600,000 in liability insurance and authorize waiver of the statute. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS: Ms. Person reminded the Council to give her any corrections or changes to the Committee handout booklet by February 10, 1994. Ms. Person stated the first for February 17 at 7:00 pm. names they would like to be please advise her soon. TCAAP meeting is scheduled If any Councilmember had any added to the mailing list, COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilmember Hicks informed the Council he will not be able to attend the February Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Aplikowski offered to attend in his absence. Councilmember Malone stated the accounts payable comments are helpful on the reports and is appreciated. Councilmember Malone questioned whether Council is going to address the issue brought forward by a resident requesting a stop light or sign in the vicinity of Hamline and County Road F/Eide Circle. Council directed staff to write a letter to the resident thanking her for her concern, and at such time this area is planned for changes, the suggestion will be investigated. I I, I I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I I- I Arden Hills Council 11 January 31, 1994 Council member Malone noted that the Finance committee is revitalized and they are taking a "cross pollination" approach and have assigned each of their members to attend one of the other monthly committee meetings. Councilmember Probst stated that due to a scheduling conflict with the Public Works Committee, the February Public Works Committee meeting will be held on February 15. Discussion topics will be the sidewalk maintenance issue and to begin to discuss the process of reviewing the water meters. Probst further commented that he would like to see the Planning Commission begin in 1994 to look into a concept plan for the TCAAP property. Councilmember Probst asked whether any of the Councilmembers will be attending the Ramsey County League breakfast on February 12. ADJOURN: MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Hicks, to adjourn the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Motion carried unanimously (5- 0) . Thomas R. Sather, Mayor Dorothy A. Person, City Administrator