Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 09-11-2006 . . . ~ ~~HILLS Approved: 10/1 0/2006 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 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 7:03 p,m, Present: Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmembers David Grant, Gregg Larson, Brenda Holden, and Vincent Pellegrin, Absent: None, Also present were City Attorney, John Miller; Civil Engineer, Kris Giga; City Engineer, Deb Bloom; Assistant City Administrator, Schawn Johnson; City Planner, James Lehnhoff; Parks and Recreation Manager, Michelle Olson; URS Engineer, Greg Brown; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION: Couneilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5,0). 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 28, 2006 City Council Meeting B. August 21, 2006 Work Session Meeting Councilmember Grant requested the following changes: August 28, 2006 City Council Meeting, Page I, under Councilmembers absent insert "excused" behind Councilrnember Holden's name, Councilmember Larson requested the following changes: August 28, 2006 City Council Meeting, Page IS, third paragraph from the bottom, third sentence, change site to "sight". . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 2 MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve the August 28, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended and the August 21, 2006 Council Work Session Minutes as presented, The motion carried unanimously (5,0), 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a, Claims and Payroll b, Motion to Approve Payment #2 to Amt Construction in the amount of$259,527,12 for the 2006 PMP Ridgewood Neighborhood Project c, Motion to Approve Resolution 06-46: Authorizing City Funds for the Development and Implementation of an Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program in 2007 d, Motion to Approve Payment to Ramsey County Parks and Recreation in the amount of $32,000 for the Tony Schmidt Park Underpass Project MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Holden 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 INQUIRIES/INFORMA TIONAL Mr. Paul Trites at 1850 Indian Place, stated he and some of his neighbors were having a dispute with one of the neighbors regarding the storage of trailers, motor homes, etc, on their property. He noted most of the trailers were not licensed and it was an eyesore, He asked what he could do. Mayor Aplikowski stated staff would look into this, 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continuation of the 2006 PMP Ridl!ewood Neil!hhorhood Assessment Hearinl! Ms. Giga stated on August 28, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing for the purpose of establishing special assessments for the 2006 PMP Improvements in the Ridgewood Neighborhood, Council continued the hearing and final action to the September 11,2006 meeting, She reviewed six oral testimonies and one written testimony heard at the August 28, 2006 meeting, as well as three written testimonies received after the meeting. She recommended no change to the proposed assessment roll. She stated that the proposed interest rate would be 10,25%, or prime plus 2%, according to the assessment policy, She indicated that some residents have expressed concern that this rate seems rather high, She stated staffresearched that a 10-year home equity loan can be obtained at a rate of 7%, and suggested that Council consider a 9% interest rate for the assessments, . e . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 3 Councilmember Grant asked what the carrying costs were to the City, Ms. Bloom responded it could be between 5,7 percent. Mayor Aplikowski reopened the public hearing at 7:30 p,m. Doug Tiee, 3576 Ridgewood Court, noted he and his neighbors only had access onto Ridgewood Court and their street was not being rebuilt, but they were being charged a $10,000 assessment which he did not understand. He indicated they had an overlay on Ridgewood Court ten years ago and it was decided early in this project that no additional work was going to be done, He stated he did not believe they were getting the same benefit as properties whose streets were being reconstructed. He asked for an explanation regarding this. Ms. Bloom stated this had been discussed previously by CounciL She acknowledged there was a mill and overlay previously done, However, she stated the neighborhood would use the roads for access to their road. Mr. Tice stated he was not saying they were not getting any benefit, but they were not getting the same benefit and he believed the assessment should be different. Mayor Aplikowski stated they would take his concerns into consideration. Couneilmember Larson asked if all properties on Ridgewood Court had the option of using Ridgewood or Siems Court, Mr. Tice responded it was possible, but he did not use the streets because they were too steep, Doug Wild, 3568 Ridgewood Court, stated Ridgewood Court was their front door. He stated he had a concern regarding the communications they had received. He indicated it was not uncommon to not be able to get to or leave their property or not have any water. He believed this was a manageable thing even though he knew it was difficult. He stated these types of instances were unacceptable, He also expressed concern with the setup of the mailboxes, He noted there was an entire row of unmonitored mailboxes, He asked if this issue had been addressed and if the City could provide secure mailboxes. He expressed concern regarding the cost estimate overage, He asked Council to consider the solution to the interest rate as an option which would lessen the pam some, Patricia Jacobson, 3530 Ridgewood Road, believed her residence was the only one like this and the issue was that their property abuts Snelling on the east side, Ridgewood Road on the west side and their address was Ridgewood Road, but their driveway and front door were on Snelling, She noted two houses share the driveway at 3529 Snelling and that was where they would enter to get to their property. She stated when the Snelling project proceeded they did not want to also be assessed for Snelling because that was where their front door was located, She noted they have had to make special arrangements with the Police Department and Fire Department so they know where to gain access in case of an emergency, Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, stated after researching, he realized the City did contribute $1,000 to the retaining walL He indicated he had sympathy for the people on Ridgewood Court. He noted they could travel in a different direction and they were not totally restricted and he believed they should receive some credit, but he indicated they would benefit by this project . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 4 because the storm water runoff would now go into the storm sewer. He expressed concern regarding the wetland at the Beach Cluh, Kathy Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, agreed the mailboxes should be put in a more secure location, She indicated there were times the mail carrier could not get through the construction and they were not getting their mail. She asked if the City would inform the mail carrier to not leave packages on top of the mailboxes. She also expressed concern about the lack of communication. She noted it took her over ten minutes to get to her home due to the construction. She stated posted signs would be very helpful. Cynthia Wheeler, 2576 Ridgewood Court, clarified the letter she sent to the Council. She stated her letter was in regard to the way the assessment policy was being proposed to be administered overall, She stated the way the City appeared to assess the properties appeared to conflict with the assessment policy, She stated the assessment was not being applied consistent with the City's policy, She reviewed the various ways the City has not consistently applied the assessment policy. Mayor Aplikowski closed the public hearing at 7:53 p,m. Councilmember Pellegrin asked if there was a better way to manage the construction issue. Ms. Giga responded she would contact the construction inspector about this tomorrow morning, Mayor Aplikowski suggested the construction company bring in portable signs for the intersections, Councilmember Pellegrin asked about themailboxsecurity.Ms. Bloom stated it is common occurrence that mailboxes are moved during road construction and the post office informs them where their boxes need to be moved. With respect to a locking mailbox, that would have needed to be noted in the bid documents, which would have increased the cost of the project She indicated in the age of identity theft, more secure mailboxes may be something to consider in the future, Councilmember Holden asked if the City was still going around informing the residents when the water was being shut off. Ms. Giga responded the O&M Department goes around and puts tags on doors when the water is being shut off, as well as using a phone network. Councilmember Grant stated they needed to have a discussion regarding the interest rate. He stated he supported the 9 percent option, Mayor Aplikowski stated she agreed with Councilmember Grant, but she would also be comfortable with 8 percent Councilmember Holden stated she would also support 9 percent Councilmember Larson stated he was also comfortable with 9 percent He noted they should make an attempt to change the assessment policy inconsistencies as noted by Ms. Wheeler. He stated if they had a large lot, there was no way to predict if the lot would eventually be subdivided, . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 5 He asked if there were any platted lots in this project that were not being assessed, Ms. Bloom responded 3581 Ridgewood Road appeared to be two lots that were combined with one house on it. Ms. Giga stated she believed there were several lots where there were two lots with one home on it. Councilmember Larson stated he believed those properties should be paying an assessment on the second lot. He indicated he was having an issue on how they could determine the benefits that were assigned, Ms. Bioom noted under the assessment policy, Council had flexibility to address these types of issues, She indicated every project would have some issues such as this, Patricia Jacobson, 3530 Ridgewood Road, stated the residents were told they would only be assessed based on one road. She asked if that was going to change, Mayor Aplikowski stated that would not change and Council needed to make this clear in the assessment policy; it currently is not. Councilmember Larson stated the spirit of the policy was that a resident was not assessed twice if they were on a comer lot or if they had access on two roads and Council would need to fix this wording, Mayor Aplikowski stated it was her understanding the people who lived on Ridgewood Court in 1996 paid approximately $600 for the mill and overlay and now they were not getting curb and gutter with this project. She noted they would get some benefit, however, and she suggested they look at an a1lowance for the people who live on Ridgewood Court. Ms. Bloom stated they did know who was assessed ten years ago and they could look at giving those residents an a1lowance, Councilmember Holden asked if this would be a part of the policy for everyone who had a previous mi1l aud overlay. Mayor Aplikowski noted these residents had a unique situation and she was only proposing this for this project only, Councilmember Grant asked how wide Ridgewood Court was. Ms. Giga responded it was 12 feet. Councilmember Grant stated he did not believe the people on Ridgewood Court would like it if the City applied the City standard for streets to this area. He stated the residents had the use of the improvement for ten years and he was not sure if they would want improvements to the City's typical standards, Councilmember Larson stated he was having a difficult time in understanding why they should not assess Ridgewood Court as they assess the other properties in the neighborhood, He stated one of the other issues was the retaining wa1l along Siems Court. He stated he was conflicted about this because one of the property owners along this area was a relative and if the City wished, he would abstain from that issue, Mayor Aplikowski responded it would not be necessary for him to abstain, e e . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11,2006 6 MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 06,47, Resolution Adopting Special Assessment Roll for the 2006 PMP,Ridgewood Neighborhood Improvements at the interest rate of 9 percent. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Planninl! Case 06-025: Site Plan Review - AMT Inc.. 1300 Grev Fox Road Mr. Lehnhoff stated AMT Inc. is requesting a site plan review to add 36 parking stalls to the property at 1300 Grey Fox Road. Although AMT Inc, owns the building, J ,1, Taylor Distributing, formerly known as East Side Beverage is a tenant. J.l. Taylor Distributing also occupies the building at 1260 Grey Fox Road, which is immediately east of the 1300 Grey Fox Road property, Grey Fox Road was recently reconstructed, and all on-street parking was eliminated, Prior to the reconstruction, J.J. Taylor Distributing had been using Grey Fox Road for a portion of their parking needs. With the loss of the on'street parking, 1.1. Taylor Distributing has been short on parking and had very crowded parking lots. This request is meant to provide adequate parking for all employees and visitors on the property. The applicant is proposing to increase the number of parking spaces at 1300 Grey Fox Road by 36 from the current 31 stalls for a total of 67 stalls, The existing parking area will be re,striped to accommodate thirteen of the new stalls, and twenty-three new stalls will be created by removing the grassy peninsula in the parking area. Although the submitted plans indicate that there will be 69 stalls on the site with the expansion, the applicant has opted to not include two proposed stalls in the northeastern part of the property due, in part, to a potential encroachment on the 20 foot parking setback from the front lot line, Currently, 1.1. Taylor Distributing is sharing parking between the two properties that it is leasing. In terms of use, the two properties are used as one. The 1260 Grey Fox Road property has 87 parking stalls, With the requested site plan review, there would be 154 parking stalls between the two properties for the 140 employees at the two sites. The applicant has submitted a shared parking agreement between the owners of 1300 Grey Fox, 1260 Grey Fox, and 1.1, Taylor Distributing. He stated the Planning Commission reviewed the planning case and unanimously recommended approval of the Site Plan Review to add 36 new parking stalls based on the submitted plans, eleven findings of fact, and eight conditions. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 06,025: Site Plan Review - AMT, Inc., 1300 Grey Fox Road subject to the eight conditions as noted in staffs September 7, 2006 report. The motion carried unanimously (5,0). . e . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER II, 2006 7 B. Planninl! Case 06-026: Preliminary Plat - Arlene Boutin. 1600 Lake Johanna Boulevard Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant is requesting a preliminary plat for 1600 Lake Johanna Blvd. which is located at the southwest comer of Lake Johanna Blvd and Siems Court on the northeast side of Lake Johanna, The eastern two-thirds of the property were originally platted as three separate lots with access to Siems Court; however, these lots were combined with a lot to the west at some point in the past. This proposal would re'plat the one combined lot into three conforming lots. He recommended Council approve the preliminary plat based on the six [mdings of fact and the seventeen conditions as noted in staffs report, Councilmember Holden asked if they did not approve this would the PMP project stand as it was. Ms. Bloom replied nothing in the agreement or discussions they have had with the property owner, guaranteed Council would approve the preliminary plat. She noted they had been discussing with the residents regarding the easement. She stated they did have an alternative to the water treatment if necessary. Councilmember Grant stated this appeared to be a win, win situation; the City needed to get rid ofthe fill and would get the water treated. MOTION: Councilrnember Pellegrin moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 06-026: Preliminary Plat - Arlene Boutin, 1600 Lake Johanna Road based on the submitted plans, the six findings of fact, and subject to the seventeen conditions as noted in staffs September 7,2006 report, Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, noted platted land does not necessarily mean it is buildable. He stated this was the lowest land in the area. He indicated this area was a wetland and would always be a wetland, He noted the water flowed in this area and it did not go into Lake Johalll1a right now and it would if this development went through. He did not believe this project would improve the water quality because the water would go directly into Lake Johanna. He stated he did not see any benefit to the City for reaching the agreement. He noted when the snow melted the entire property filled up with water. He believed the City was making a mistake and recommended they deny this. He expressed concern about the tree removal also. Kathy Nelson, 3475 Siems Conrt, stated once they put a house on this lot, there would be a lot more impervious surface which would create more run off. She noted they had a house in their neighborhood off of the comer of Arden Place and Siems Court where the land was lowland and every time it rained, children would swim or canoe in it. She noted this land was deemed buildable and was filled in, Once the home was built the foundation cracked because the land was low land, She noted the second owner had flooding problems in their back yard. The third owner also had flooding problems and the City had to build a culvert to get the water out of the yard, She stated she saw this proposal as a potential problem, . e . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 8 Diane Pearson, 1556 Arden Place, expressed concern regarding the trees and the possible removal of them, She requested the trees be preserved on the hilL Mr. Lehnhoff responded all of the trees on the hillside would be protected. He stated two conditions for the approval have been included that restrict tree removal on the hillside and outside of the proposed tree removal area. Mr. Nelson stated the water right now flows over the curb down the hill and it does not go directly into the lake; it sat there until it was absorbed into the land, Ms. Giga responded the water did flow onto the property and there was an exiting culvert from the wetland area to the lake, Bob Meinzor, applicant's husband, stated there was a culvert there because he cleaned the culvert, He stated the culvert ran directly into the lake, but it was not particularly efficient. Mr. Nelson asked which culvert they were talking about. He asked ifthere was a second culvert, Ms. Bloom responded there was an existing culvert in the southwest comer of the lot, which would be replaced as a part of this project. Cindy Wheeler, 3576 Ridgewood Court, expressed concern the City was providing free fill for a private development. Ms. Giga responded part of the original negotiations was fill for the easement. She noted the City would not be charged for the easement. She stated the City had to haul the fill elsewhere, which would cost the City approximately $50,000, Ms. Wheeler stated she believed this was a conflict and how could the City not approve something they believed was a win, win for the City. She noted this development was also not consistent with the assessment policy. Councilmember Holden stated she did not see a reason why they should not subdivide the land, She noted it met all of the requirements, She stated she would be voting in favor of this, The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Motion to Estahlish the Pavable 2007 Preliminarv Tax Levies/2006 Truth in Taxation Dates a. Resolution 06-43: Setting the Preliminary Levy for Taxes Payable in 2007 b. Resolution 06-44: Setting the Preliminary Special Levy for the Karth Lake Improvement District Payable in 2007 c. Resolution 06-45: Adopting Truth in Taxation Public Haring Dates for Proposed Taxes Payable in 2007 Mr. Johnson stated by September 15,2006, the City is required to adopt and certify to Ramsey County a preliminary levy and Truth in Taxation dates, MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 06,43 which establishes the preliminary operating levy for taxes payable 2007 in the amount of $2,675,161 - a 6% increase from the 2006 levy, . e . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER II, 2006 9 Councilmember Hoiden stated she had a concern regarding the 6% levy and she would not support it. She noted the City was expecting significant funds to come in the next year. Councilmember Grant stated he also would not support a 6% levy and staff came to them with a 4% initially. He stated the more extras tbey tacked on, those extras would eventually get spent. Councilmember Larson stated he did support the motion and noted the City has been very conservative in the way it approached levies compared to other Cities, He noted a lot of things the City wanted to do they could not do because they did not have sufficient funds. He stated it was not irresponsible in talking about a six percent versus a four percent increase, Councilmember Pellegrin asked if they were making money on the embezzlement. Mr. Johnson responded it was his understanding they were only getting a portion of the money back and not the total sum and they were not making money on this. Councilmember Larson noted the money they recovered from the embezzlement was not a windfall for the City and it was money that was originally stolen from the City in the first place. Mayor Aplikowski stated she would support the 6% levy and she did not think it was irresponsible to give staff more time, She noted they could be looking at a 4% levy in December, but she wanted to give staff some latitude, Councilmember Holden stated she did not believe they had agreed on the capital improvement projects they wanted to do, She noted they have not been maintaining the road, parks, trails, and tennis courts. She stated this was inappropriate and she would not support it. Councilmember Grant stated if the utility rates were too low, then they needed to raise the utility rates, He stated the utility funds were too low because they were spending too much, He noted they needed to be more fiscally responsible and they should be taxing for what they need, He stated staff had come to them with a four percent budget and he did not believe they should raise it to six percent. Mayor Aplikowski stated staff had indicated they would try to keep the levy at four percent. Councilmember Pellegrin stated he was also not sure he was in favor of the 6% levy. He noted they had to get out of the pay me later mode, The motion carried unanimously (3-2 Councilmembers Grant and Holden opposed). Councilmember Pellegrin left the meeting at 9:24 p.m, MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 06-44 which establishes the preliminary levy for the Karth Lake Improvement District for taxes payable 2007 in the amount of $13,782.67. The motion carried unanimously (4,0 Councilmember Pellegrin absent for the vote), . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER II, 2006 10 Councilmember Pellegrin rejoined the meeting at 9:25 p,m. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 06,45 which establishes Truth in Taxation hearing dates for proposed taxes payable in 2007. The dates established are December 4th and December II, 2006, The motion carried unanimously (5, 0), D. Boston Scientific Water Sil!nal!e Discussion Mr. Lehnhoff stated with the recent acquisition of Guidant by Boston Scientific, they plan to replace the Guidant signage with Boston Scientific signage. Based on a preliminary review of their wall and monument sign proposal, no special permits will be needed because the new signage will not exceed the sign area or dimensions of the old signage (a regular sign permit will still be required for each sign that is visible from the public right-of-way or neighboring properties). However, Boston Scientific is considering changing the dimensions and possibly the color of the signage on their water tower. Dan Riehle, Facilities Manager for Boston Scientific, stated Boston Scientific had more letters than Guidant did and he did not believe the size of the lettering would matter on the water tower, Councilmember Grant stated given the prominence of the water tower and the sign this needed to come before Council. He asked what was the size of the letters being proposed to be put up, Mr. Riehle responded the "B" and "s" would be bigger than 24", Councilmember Grant asked Council if this was what they wanted, MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve the Boston Scientific Water Tower Signage and it be deemed an insignificant change and did not require Boston Scientific to go through the planning process, Conncilmember Holden stated she was surprised the City was restrictive on other signage within the City and not on this property also. The motion carried unanimously (5,0), 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Lehnhoffrequested Council hear item 8C prior to 8A. C. Planninl! Case 01-05: Chesapeake Companies - Extension of Master PUD Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant has requested an additional one-year extension for their Master Plan PUD. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11,2006 11 He recommended approval of the requested one'year extension to allow Chesapeake Companies to submit a Final Plan PUD no later than September 26, 2007, subject to the thirteen conditions from the original PUD approval and condition 14 that was added in 2004. Diane Fredeen, Chesapeake Companies, indicated they were moving forward and it would not take them a year to finish this. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve in Planning Case 01,05: Chesapeake Companies - Extension of Master PUD approval of the requested one, year extension to allow Chesapeake Companies to submit a Final Plan PUD no later than September 26, 2007, subject to the thirteen conditions from the original PUD approval and condition 14 that was added in 2004 noted in staffs September 5,2006 report. The motion carried unanimously (5-0), A. Motion to Extend Closinl! for Old City Hall/Public Works Property Mr. Lehnhoff stated due to the time involved in obtaining a permit from Rice Creek Watershed, Royal Oaks will not be able to receive a final plat approval for the proposed redevelopment of the Old City HalllPublic Works Site until October. Therefore, Royal Oaks is requesting an extension ofthe closing date on or before October 30, 2006. She recommended Council approve the requested closing date extension, MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve the recommended closing date extension for the sale of the Old City HalllPublic Works site to Royal Oaks Realty to on or before October 30,2006. The motion carried unanimously (5,0). D. TCAAP Update Mayor Aplikowski updated the Council on recent TCAAP developments, Councilmembers Holden and Grant requested the developers not call them at their work phone nwnbers, B. County Road E Sidewalk Discussion Ms. Olson stated at the August 21, 2006 City Council Work Session, the Council requested staff to present a history of the County Road E Pedestrian Sidewalk hnprovements at this Council meeting. A number of options have been discussed at neighborhood informational meetings and City Council meetings over the past three years, The Parks and Trails Master Plan adopted in 2002 indicated that expanding the trail network was a high priority. The County Road E Bridge over TH5l is considered a weak link in the system and poses a dangerous condition for pedestrian traffic, Currently, very narrow walkways exist on both sides of the bridge, creating potential . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11,2006 12 safety issues for pedestrians. On October 12, 2004, City Council passed Resolution 04-056 requesting MnDOT consideration of a cost sharing cooperative agreement for pedestrian improvements to the County Road E Bridge over Trunk Highway 51, URS submitted a request to MnDOT to be considered for the 2006 cooperative agreement funding cycle. At the November 15,2004 Work Session, Council was presented with additional information regarding the project. The Council passed a resolution at the November 29, 2004 meeting approving the sidewalk for the north side of County Road E from Old Highway 10 to Connelly Avenue, The project was reviewed by MnDOT with thirty five other projects and ranked fourteenth in priority for funding, A total often projects were funded with the next four listed as alternatives, As discussed at the July 17, 2006 Work Session, Council is contemplating the County Road E pedestrian improvements as a 2008 project. MnDOT is again accepting candidate projects for the 2008 Municipal Agreement Program. Project proposals for the cooperative agreement need to be submitted by October 11, 2006 to be considered for the 2008 program, It is anticipated that the actual project selection will occur in early January of2007 with the funds becoming available July 1,2007, Staff requested direction from Council to apply for the agreement by the City Council meeting on September 25, 2006. Ms. Giga reviewed the funding available, Councilmember Holden asked why the sidewalk had to be a specific width, She asked if it could be smaller. Mr. Brown responded they could have gone down to six feet also, but the City had chosen the 7,5 feet. Councilmember Grant asked if this was eligible for State Aid, Mr. Brown responded that was correct. Councilmember Grant stated he was in favor of the north option, even if it was more expensive, He noted this was the safer option, Councilmember Larson stated he was in favor of the south side option. He noted putting the walkway on the south side allowed them to connect to the City parks and the only trail that runs along County Road E. He noted this would also affect fewer properties and there was no adverse driveway impacts, Councilmember Holden stated they needed to plan for the future and she did not understand why they would want to put pressure on having people crossing at the crosswalk when they could cross safely on the other side, She noted they would not have more developments in the south side of the City and she was going to vote for the north side. Mayor Aplikowski stated if they did this and Ramsey County got the money for the bridge, would the bridge include sidewalks. Mr. Brown responded if a new bridge was put in it would include sidewalks probably on both sides, . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 13 MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to extend the meeting time to 10:30 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Councilmember Larson stated in the previous materials considered by the Council there were a number of suggestions that would add additional safety to the crossing, Couucilmember Holden noted they did have no turn on red at Hamline, but people did it anyway. She noted right now traffic backed up on County Road E. Mayor Aplikowski stated she believed this needed to go back to a work session and they needed to get the public involved in this again. She asked Council to direct staff to apply for the northern side because that was the most expensive and it could be changed and then they discuss this at a work session, Councilmember Larson stated he would like to vote on this tonight. He noted he did not want to spend more time discussing this at a work session. Kate Barnes, 1434 County Road E, stated safety and traffic was a concern. Mayor Aplikowski asked if they did not get the money for this, would this come back for Council to look at again. Councilmember Holden stated Council would need to look at this agam, MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to direct staff to prepare documents to apply for the MnDOT cooperative agreement for funding in 2008 and proceed with a 7.5 foot width sidewalk on the north side of the bridge at a cost of $276,700 and extend a 6 foot concrete sidewalk with 2 foot paver strip down to Old Highway 10 at a cost of $302,900, Total project cost estimate is then $679,600. The funding for the sidewalk extension would be MSA eligible. The motion carried unanimously (3-1-1 Councilmember Larson opposed and Mayor Aplikowski abstained), COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REOUESTS Councilmember Holden - Noted a lot of people have been using the tennis courts and thanked staff for their work on them, Councilmember Grant - Requested a discussion at a work session regarding the videotaping of the City Council and Planning Commission meetings. He requested a discussion regarding his ideas about making the meetings shorter. Councilmember Pellegrin - Publicly acknowledged the heightened visibility of the Ramsey County Sheriff in his neighborhood. Mayor Aplikowski - Thanked staff for all of their hard work. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11,2006 14 Mayor Aplikowski adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting meeting at 10:20 p,m. ~~' (d~,lUllf Bever! i\pli owski Michelle Wolfe Mayor City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held Monday, September 25,2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council Chambers,