Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 05-22-2006 . . . ~ ~~ILLS Approved: 6/1212006 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2006; 7:00 P.M. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Beverly Aplikowski called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:02 p.m. Present: Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmembers David Grant, Gregg Larson, Brenda Holden, and Vincent Pellegrin. Absent: None. Also present were City Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer, Murtuza Siddiqui; Community Development Director, Karen Barton; Civil Engineer, Kris Giga; City Planner, James Lehnhoff; Recreation Supervisor, Michelle Olson; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman, I. APPROY AL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0), 2. APPROY AL OF MINUTES A. May 8, 2006 City Council Meeting Councilmember Grant requested the following changes: Page 5, 5th paragraph, first sentence, change fund to loan halance, MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the May 8, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended, The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 2 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a, Motion to Accept the Financial Audit Report Submitted by Abdo, Eick, & Meyers b, Resolution 06-34: Approving the Use of the Automark Voting Machines for Future Elections c. Claims and Payroll d. Operations & Maintenance Department Transition Plan MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0), 4. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC INOUlRIES/INFORMATIONAL David McClung, 4370 N. Snelling Avenue, stated the City had their Flower Planting Day on Saturday and thanked the City and stafffor a wonderful day, Brenda Goldman, 1146 Waldon Place, asked for information regarding garage sale signs, She stated she has lived in her home for 13 years and had her first garage sale this year, She noted in the past a number of neighbors had used Lexington and County Road C to place signs, She stated on Friday afternoon, she discovered the City had pulled her signs. She stated she had called the City and was informed there was a sign moratorium, which she did not know about. When she inquired about what changed, she was informed the sign ordinance was being enforced. She stated that when a change like this was made, the City should make sure the residents were noti fied. She asked what the issue was with respect to garage sale signs. Mayor Aplikowski stated she also did not know that garage sale signs were part of the moratorium. Mr. Lehnhoff responded staff empathizes with residents who want to put up garage sale signs, but signs were not allowed in the public right-of-way and also no off-premise signs were allowed, which included garage sale signs. He noted even with permission of the property owner, off-premises signs were not allowed. He indicated the moratorium did not affect this and this had always been the rule, but now they were enforcing the rule more stringently, He stated staff was moving forward with a new Sign Code in June where provisions such as off-premise signs in residential areas were being addressed more stringently. Ms. Goldman stated if the City was going to pull garage sale signs, it needed to be communicated to the residents. She noted she was also concerned that the City was not being consistent with the garage sale sign removal. Councilmember Holden noted she was on the newsletter committee and they tried their best to get accurate information in the newsletter, but . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 3 she also did not realize how this would affect garage sale signs, but noted that the Council was protecting the City against large illuminated bill board signs. Councilmember Grant acknowledged that he did receive a phone call from Ms. Goldman, but he was out of town and could not return her call. He thanked her for coming to this meeting and making Council aware of this issue. Ms. Wolfe stated it was always the City's intent to communicate with the residents, but in this case, the City had received information they had to move on quickly. She stated they acted quickly to protect the City from certain types of signs and potential sign-related lawsuits, The City Council was protecting the City from potential legal action pertaining to billboard signs. Mayor Aplikowski apologized for Ms. Goldman's inconvenience. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. NPDES Annual Storm Water Meetine: Ms. Giga stated as of March 10, 2003, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency required all cities within the Seven County Metro Region to apply for General Storm Water Permit as part of Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. In order to comply with new federal regulations, municipalities were required to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that focused on ways the municipality would reduce the amount of sediment and pollution entering the surrounding water bodies, The SWPPP required six minimum control measures that needed to be addressed by the City. Each measure was aimed at reducing the amount of pollution entering water bodies through various methods such as public outreach and education, regulatory ordinances, and physical structures constructed as part of the storm water sewer system. Each control measure included several Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be used to accomplish the measure and each would include measurable goals that could establish the effectiveness of the SWPPP. She noted every year the City was required to hold a public meeting on the SWPPP. The City was also required to submit an annual report to the MPCA documenting the accomplishments of the previous year. She summarized the minimum control measures and the accomplishments of 2005 as well as the goals for 2006. Mayor Aplikowski opened the public hearing at 7:29 p,m, There were no comments made. Mayor Aplikowski closed the public hearing at 7:30 p,m. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 4 Councilmember Holden asked on the west side of Lake Johanna Boulevard who was responsible for cleaning that area, Ms. Giga responded Lake Johanna Boulevard was a County Road and she believed the County was responsible for cleaning it, but she would check into this. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion to Reiect Bids for the 2006 Ridl!ewood PMP Construction Proiect Ms. Giga stated bids were received and opened for the 2006 PMP Ridgewood Neighborhood Improvements on May 11, 2006. Bids were received from three contractors with Amt Construction submitting the lowest bid of$1,808,584.32, Engineering costs for the project were estimated at $393,310, resulting in a total project cost of $2,201,894.32. She indicated the low bid was approximately $289,625.90 higher than the Engineer's Estimate and $437,894.32 higher than the feasibility report. She stated staff has outlined some options on how to proceed with this project and the factors to consider with each option. Option 1 : Award the project to low bidder, The Storm Sewer Fund balance is currently negative by approximately $95,000. At the end of this project, the balance would be negative by approximately $200,000, Funds could be reallocated through an internal loan from another account to ensure these needs remain fully funded. Capital and Water Fund balances will also decrease significantly. Option 2: Reject all bids and re-advertise the project early in 2007. While the total project cost may not decrease, this would allow time for the fund balances to improve and allow for more sufficient fund allocations when preparing for next year's budget. She indicated this option would also allow staff time to further review the plans and find value engineering opportunities to reduce overall project costs. In order to remain proactive with the City's Pavement Management Program, staff would recommend incorporating next year's mill and overlay project with the Ridgewood Neighborhood Improvements construction contract. This may also be more cost-effective for both parts of the proj ect. Option 3: Reject all bids and postpone the project indefinitely. Staff does not recommend this option, as the plans for the project have been completed. While there would be some additional engineering costs to re-advertise the project, the longer the project is postponed, significant changes may be necessary to the plans. Ms, Giga stated there were two additional options to present to Council: Option 4: Award the project to the low bidder this evening, and authorize staff to discuss changes to the contract with the contactor, in an attempt to reduce project costs. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 5 Option 5: Table the item to the next Council meting to allow staff time to discuss the changes to the contract with the Contractor, in an attempt to reduce project cots. Ms, Giga stated that in both instances, it should be noted that the low bidder has no obligation to the City to offer lower prices for alternate materials. The low bidder was over $300,000 lower than the next lowest bidder, and with re-advertising the project, value engineering opportunities may not result in a reduction in project costs. She stated that the consulting engineer, URS, has been in contact with the low bidder and they are willing to consider some proposed changes. Ms. Giga requested Council to discuss the options and provide staff with direction on how to proceed. Councitmember Grant asked where the storm sewer fund balance would be in 2007, Mr. Siddiqui responded that in the scenario he worked on was if they were to take on this project, they would be in a deficit of almost $200,000 at the beginning of next year. If they were not to do this project they would be $400,000 in the positive. He noted this project would cost $605,000 for storm sewer. Councitmember Grant asked if they did this project next year, what the fund balance would be. Mr. Siddiqui responded they would be looking at the same situation. Councilmember Larson stated if they put this project off until next year, it did not appear there would be any significant difference, The only difference was that if they did it this year, there would be a larger negative balance this year that they would recover next year, He stated that did not seem to him to be a significant consideration as to whether they went forward or not. He stated they either did the project his year, or next year with the same difference. Mayor Aptikowskl suggested they table this until next month. She agreed this was not a strong enough reason to not do this because they did not gain that much by putting it off. Councilmember Holden asked what kind of changes could decrease the cost. Ms. Giga responded some of the pipe material included in the project was more expensive and there would be alternatives using other pipe that may be less expensive, Councilmember Grant stated it appeared they were over budget by $437,000 and what would they forego in the current capital budget to make this up, Ms. Wolfe responded they have not had an opportunity to scrutinize this in great detail because the bid just came in last week, but two of the largest overages were in the storm sewer fund and water main fund, She noted options were limited for these funds because there were no major projects in the next two years, She stated the third fund affected was the capital fund. She indicated that two other purchases for this year would probably not be brought forward this year which may cover some of the cost overage. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 6 Mayor Aplikowski stated she wanted to do this project and she wanted staff to look at cutting some costs, but she believed they put a lot of time and effort in this project and to delay it was not appropriate. She noted they had the money, but they just needed to shift some funds around. Councitmember Holden stated she wanted to go with Option 3 to see what the PMP was going to do. She stated she would like to see some cost savings and put off the reconstruction. Councitmember Larson stated he agreed with Mayor Aplikowski and believed they needed to do everything they could to make this work this year, He noted the neighborhood wanted to see this project done. He indicated the City had neglected infrastructure over the years and now they were playing catch up, He indicated this would continue to be a problem for them and the street improvement program would be a costly one. He believed they would need to look at bonding in the City to address some of these future needs. He stated he was not sure the cost was going to be any less next year and he did not believe they would be able to reduce the costs significantly and still be able to do a good job. He indicated he wanted this project to go forward, He stated they needed to move forward and do the improvements to the street system. He believed it was an important role of Council to maintain the infrastructure, MOTION; Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to table the 2006 PMP Ridgewood Neighborhood Improvement Proj ect in order to allow staff time to research potential cost saving options and bring this back to Council. Councitmember Holden stated she did not see any effort of the City to maintain the streets that were still in good shape and this concerned her. She stated she would vote no on this motion. The motion carried (4-1 Councilmember Holden opposed), B. Resolution No. 06-35: Supporting the Ramscv County Regional Rail Authority's interest in Acquiring the TCAAP Railroad Corridor in Arden Hills Ms. Barton stated the United States Army had declared excess the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plan (TCAAP) railroad corridor extending from the TCAAP site over Highway 10 in Arden Hills and into New Brighton, The General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the U.S. Army was in the process of attempting to sell this rail corridor, with priority being given to a negotiated purchase with local government. She stated the City of New Brighton had expressed interest in maintaining the railroad corridor for the purpose of preserving it for future use as a transportation corridor, possibly including it within a regional mass transit system. The Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority (RCRRA) had also expressed interest in acquiring the corridor to preserve it for future transportation purposes, The City of New Brighton adopted a Resolution supporting the RCRRA in acquiring the TCAAP railroad corridor area in November of2005. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 7 She indicated the RCRRA was charged with the responsibility of developing and preserving railroad corridors throughout the County. Because this particular corridor extends through both New Brighton and Arden Hills, their involvement would provide for greater efficiency in securing the corridor for future transportation and possibly regional mass transit use. Currently, Scherer Brothers Lumber Company in Arden Hills utilizes this railroad corridor for lumber deliveries. Scherer Brothers had indicated that they would support the RCRRA in acquiring the corridor, provided their use of the corridor was not discontinued or restricted in anyway. The RCRRA has stated that they would maintain the rail line and continue to allow Scherer Brothers to utilize the line. She recommended Council pass Resolution 06-35 supporting Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority's role in negotiating for the purchase and acquisition of the TCAAP railroad corridor in Arden Hills for the purpose of preserving it for future transportation opportunities and current business use. Conncilmember Holden asked if they had the guarantee in writing with respect to Scherer Brothers. Ms. Barton stated she could get it in writing from them. Councilmember Grant requested the following amendments to the Resolution: First WHEREAS clause to read "WHEREAS, a portion of the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) Railroad Corridor located west ofHighwav 10 extending through Arden Hills has been declared excess by the United States Army; and. Second WHEREAS clause to read "WHEREAS, the General Services Administration (GSA), working on behalf of the United States Army, is in the process of negotiating for the sale of the TCAAP railroad corridor west of Highwav 10 in Arden Hills; and. Therefore clause to read: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Arden Hills supports the role of the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority in acquiring the TCAAP railroad corridor area west ofHighwav ] 0 in Arden Hills." MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve Resolution 06-35 supporting Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority's role in negotiating for the purchase and acquisition of the TCAAP railroad corridor in Aden Hills for the purpose of preserving it for future transportation opportunities and current business use. The motion earned unanimously (5-0). C. Planninl! Case 06-13: Variance and Preliminarv Plat: Amities Coast LLC - 3685 and 3695 New Bril!hton Road Mr. Lehnhoff stated applicant was requesting a preliminary plat to reconfigure two existing lots at 3685 and 3695 New Brighton Road into four new lots, The request also included a variance to allow the four lots to share one private driveway to New Brighton Road and for Lots 2 and 3 to not directly abut the public right-of-way. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 8 . The preliminary plat would reconfigure 3685 New Brighton Road (1.87 acres) and 3695 New Brighton Road (,99 acres) into four new lots and one outlot. Lots 1 and 2 were essentially on the 3695 New Brighton Road property, and Lots 3 and 4 on the 3685 New Brighton Road property. Outlot A was on the 3695 property immediately adjacent to the existing property line with 3685 New Brighton Road. The applicant was proposing to remove the two existing driveways that serve 3685 and 3695 New Brighton Road and construct one shared private driveway to New Brighton Road for all four proposed lots. The City's Subdivision Code did not permit streets outside of Planned Unit Developments and requires all lots to be directly adjacent to the public right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant was requesting a variance for a shared private driveway and, by default, for Lots 2 and 3 to not be directly adjacent to a public right-of-way, If approved, Lots 2 and 3 would have access to the public right-of-way via the proposed private driveway on Outlot A, He stated although the site plans indicate that only three of the four proposed lots would use the private driveway, the applicant was proposing that all four of the lots would access New Brighton Road from the private driveway. The applicant had submitted a utility plan, grading & erosion control plan, and tree removal plan. . According to the proposed site plans, Lots 1, 2, and 3 would accommodate walk-out style homes, The existing structures on 3695 New Brighton lot, including a dwelling and four accessory structures, would be removed. The existing dwelling and accessory structure on the 3685 New Brighton lot would remain on Lot 4. He stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance and preliminary plat. The variance denial was based on the finding that no hardship existed because there was sufficient space on the lot to construct a full City street and cul-de-sac, which would be in conformance with the City's Subdivision Code, Since the variance was recommended for denial, the preliminary plat was included in the motion to recommend denial of the variance since Lots 2 and 3 do not have access to the public right-of- way and are not in conformance with the Subdivision Code without approval of the variance. Dan Larson, on behalf of Amities Coast, LLC, has requested the application be tabled to give the applicant an opportunity to submit a revised application that is in full compliance with the Subdivision Code, If tabled, the application would be remanded back to the Planning Commission for further review. He indicated the preliminary plat and variance were submitted as one application and presented to the Planning Commission as being contingent upon each other. However, upon further examination, the City Council does have the option to deny the variance and table the preliminary plat. This action would require the applicant to submit a revised subdivision design that meets the full Subdivision Code without the need for a variance. If the applicant were nnable to revise the design to be in full compliance with the Subdivision Code, the City would . . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 9 still have the option to deny the preliminary plat at a later meeting. A tabled application, whether in full or in part, would be remanded back to the Planning Commission for further review, If the full application was denied, the findings from the Planning Commission should be cited as the reason for the denial unless other findings are developed. Once denied, Section 8.EA of the Zoning Ordinance states that an application cannot be resubmitted for the subject properties within six months of the date of denial. It may be possible to grant a waiver to this provision if the City Council so desired, He noted the City received the completed application for this request on April 10, 2006. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 10, 2006 (within 60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 6-day review period. The City may, with the petitioner's consent, extend the review period beyond the 120 days, Councilmember Larson stated given the recommendation of staff, the Planning Commission, and applicant's request, he believed they should table this, Tim Horita, property owner of 3685 and 3695 New Brighton Road, requested this be tabled to redesign the proposal. He believed they would be able to address all of the concerns of the Planning Commission and hoped to be able to reconfigure this so they would not need to request a variance. He indicated he would be working with the adjacent property owners regarding this, MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to table both the plat and the variance to give the applicant an opportunity to revise the plan and remand this back to the Planning Commission for review. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). D. Planninl! Case 06.15: Zoninl! Ordinance Addition for the B.4 Zone Mr. Lehnhoff stated applicant is requesting a Zoning Ordinance addition to allow "higher education" and "special education" as a permitted use in the B-4 Zone, The B-4 Zone encompasses those properties immediately adjacent to Dunlap Street North between Red Fox Road and Grey Fox Road. He indicated although Planning Case 06-016 (Special Use Permit for Higher and Special Education) was dependent upon this planning case, the details of Planning Case 06-015 should not be considered when evaluating the request in this planning case, When reviewing a zoning ordinance amendment or addition, it was important to consider how the change would affect the entire zone instead of one specific property. If approved as requested, higher or special education could be a permitted use on any property in the B-4 Zone. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval (4-2) of the Zoning Ordinance request to allow higher and special education as a special use in the B-4 Zone. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 10 . Councilmember Grant stated he did not have a problem with this request and it seemed reasonable to allow bigher education and special education as a special use. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the Ordinance Addition to allow higher education and special education as special uses in the B-4 Zone. The motion carried unanimously (5-0), E. Planning Case 06-16: Soecial Use Permit for Higher Education Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant had requested a Special Use Permit for Higher Education and Special Education in the B-4 Zone, If approved, the applicant had indicated an accredited higher educational institution would occupy the space. According to the applicant, the educational space would be used for continuing education and other similar types of educational uses. Due to ongoing negotiations, the applicant had requested that the potential tenant remain anonymous. This application was contingent upon approval of Planning Case 06-015, which was a request to allow higher education and special education as a permitted use in the B-4 Zone. He indicated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Special Use Permit for Higher Education and Special Education in the B-4 Zone, subject to the following seven conditions: . I. The proposed use may increase traffic during certain times of the day when classes are ending or beginning. The applicant is not proposing to increase the number of parking spaces. Overall, the use is unlikely to significantly increase congestion or parking needs. 2. The proposed use will not produce any additional noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, or any other nuisance characteristics, 3. The proposed use will not affect drainage, 4. The proposed use will not affect the permanent population density of the neighborhood. 5. While the exterior will be upgraded, the changes will be compatible with existing uses and structures in the surrounding properties, 6. The park dedication fee does not apply. 7. If higher education is approved as a special use in Planning Case 06-015, then this use will be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, The proposed use does not conflict with the Comprehensive Development Plan. He stated the Planning Commission and staff recommend that the approval be subject to the following five conditions: . 1. 2. 3. The building shall not exceed its maximum occupancy at any time. Construction shall not begin without the appropriate permits, Any outdoor signage shall require an approved sign permit. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 11 4. If the parking lot is unable to accommodate the parking needs of the building, the applicant shall increase the number of parking stalls to meet the City's parking requirement through the site plan review process. If the educational use exceeds 80 students, the applicant shall provide proof of parking for the additional students at a rate of one parking space per student. The proof of parking shall include a signed agreement between the property owner and the parking provider, the length of the agreement, and the number of parking spaces provided. The proof of parking and parking agreement and student expansion shall be subject to the approval by the City Planner. 5. He indicated staff has not received any public comments regarding this application. Councilmember Holden asked where they would be able to acquire additional parking spaces. Mr. Lehnhoff responded they could expand some on their property, but the City also allowed shared parking with surrounding properties, He indicated they would need to get a proof of parking for shared parking with other properties. Councilmember Larson asked why they were being asked to give a special use permit for both special education and higher education. He believed they addressed different things. Mr. Lehnhoff stated this would provide additional flexibility. Rob Davidson, 3900 Northwoods Drive #125, stated he was the owner of the 1212 building. He stated they wanted both uses to meet needs of flexibility for market share. He noted this would be a significant investment in improvements so if there was a change in the character of the education, they wanted the flexibility to use either special or higher education, He did not believe parking would be an issue because the school would be in operation after normal business hours. Councilmember Grant stated Mr. Davidson was also responsible for the renovation of Anchor Bank, which was a nice upgrade to that building and he believed this building would be of the same caliber. Mr. Davidson stated the 1212 building was a 1970's building that needed a lot of renovation. He noted they would renovate the east and north face of the building, which was the only public use of the building, MOTION: Councilrnember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve the Special Use Permit for higher and special education subject to the five recommended conditions as noted in staffs May 15, 2006 report, Mr. Filla noted the approval of the Special Use Permit has to be effective following the date of publication of the text amendment Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously (5-0), 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 12 A. TCAAP Ms. Barton updated on the Council on recent TCAAP developments. 9. COUNCIL REOUESTS None. Councilmember Grant stated Council would be adjourning to a Closed Session immediately following the Work Session to discuss the following: TCAAP Land Sale Negotiations, pursuant to MS 13D.05, Subd, 3.c3; Old City Hall/Public Works Land Sale Negotiations, pursuant to MS 13D.05, Subd, 3,c3; and City Hall Arbitration. Mayor Aplikowski adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting meeting at 8:28 p.m, ~6t/~~. \M~~ Beverly 1'\pl owski Michelle Wolfe Mayor City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, June 12,2006 at 7:00 p,m. at the Arden Hills Council Chambers.