Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 07-11-2005 , . . . ~ ... , , ~ ~HILLS Approved: AUl!;ust 8, 2005 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 11, 2005, 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 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 7:05 p.m. Present: Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmembers David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Brenda Holden. Absent: Councilmember Lois Rem. Also present were City Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; Director of Operations & Maintenance, Thomas Moore; Finance Director/Treasurer, Murtuza Siddiqui; Community Development Director, Scott Clark; City Engineer, Greg Brown; Assistant to City Manager, Schawn Johnson; City Planner, Pete Hellegers; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Councilmember Grant requested item Item 6.C be pulled from the agenda and placed on the Council Work Session for July 18, 2005. Ms. Wolfe stated item 5.A. should be moved to item 4.A MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as revised. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A June 27, 2005 City Council Minutes B. June 20,2005 Work Session Minutes Councilmember Holden requested the following changes: None. Councilmember Grant requested the following changes: June 20, 2005 Council Work Session, change under absent: Councilmember Grant should say excused absence. \ \Mctro-inet. us\ardenhillslAdmin\CouncillMinuteslRegular\2005\07 -II-OS Approved.doc . . . >; ". ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11, 2005 2 Councilmember Larson requested the following changes: June 27, 2005 City Council Meeting, correct the spelling of efface to EFIS. June 20, 2005 City Council Work session, Page 5, 5th paragraph from the bottom delete the sentence: Each year improvements to the park system are dependent upon charitable gambling revenues. Mayor Aplikowski requested the following changes: June 20, 2005 Work Session, insert on Page 4, third up from the update, add: "Mayor Aplikowski stated her opposition to a ban in open air because of the inability to enforce and she also stated she was really opposed to the posting of signs in the parks and on the trails. She considers that sign pollution." Ms. Wolfe requested the following changes on behalf of Councilmember Rem: June 27, 2005 stated Councilmember Rem was present, but she did leave the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Under item 1, the unanimous motion should be changed to 5-0. Item 2, Councilmember Rem had no changes. Page 2, under motion should be 5-0 with the same change under the Consent Calendar. Page 5, between the 3rd paragraph from the bottom, should note that Councilmember Rem left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the June 27, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended, the June 20, 2005 Council Work Session Minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Claims and Payroll b. Approve Resolution #05-44: Approving the Application for the New Use of Tax Forfeited Land at the Intersection of Amble Road and Dellwood Street MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 4. PUBLIC INOUlRIES/INFORMATIONAL A, City Council Recol!:nition of Fred Bell's and Fred Reed's Retirement from the Operations and Maintenance Department Mayor Aplikowski stated Fred Bell has been with the City for 29 years and Fred Reed has been with the City for 27 years and both were retiring. She publically thanked them for their service to the City. ., ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 3 . 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution #05-45: Approval of Roval Oaks Special Use Permit (Old City Hall Site) Mr. Hellegers requested Council consider the approval of Resolution No. 05-45 which would approve a Master and Final Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Royal Oaks Realty to redevelop the former City Hall and Public Works site on Highway 96 and also to consider for approval the Planned Unit Development Permit No. 05-12. He noted the Planning Commission at their July 6, 2005 meeting recommended approval (6-1) subject to eighteen conditions as noted in staff's July 11,2005 report. . Councilmember Larson stated he was very concerned about access onto Hamline Avenue. He indicated he had a hard time understanding why this was a necessary part of this project and he would be much more supportive having a second exit and entrance onto Highway 96. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, replied one of the issues on Highway 96 was the left turn movement, which restricted the movement in and out of the development. He stated the access to Hamline afforded multiple movements and allowed for disbursement of traffic in and out of the site from all different directions, which was a key point that they needed for this development. He noted his traffic engineer was unable to be in attendance at tonight's meeting, but he believed the engineer would say it was better to have multiple access points in and out as opposed to directing traffic to one spot. He stated it was critical to this development to have this full movement in terms of access. Councilmember Larson stated he was not so concerned about the traffic from the development entering and existing on Highway 96 because if they needed to make a "U" turn at Hamline, that was a controlled intersection and he believed that was better than having people turning on Hamline Avenue to access the site. He stated if people were exiting the development and the intention was to head southbound on Hamline Avenue, it was a simple matter to turn at the light. He indicated the amount of additional traffic that would be using that intersection did not warrant having an additional access on Hamline Avenue. Mr. Clark indicated one of the statements that the County made was that the westbound traffic on Highway 96 could use a "U" turn to get back onto the site, but the County would reserve judgment as far as the traffic safety with respect to "U" turn and if the City funneled the traffic to make a "U" turn, there was a possibility the County would eliminate "U" turns, which would be detrimental to the development. . Councilmember Larson replied "U" turns were not the best of all worlds, but he would like to see them being made on Highway 96 where there was room to make them. He also noted this would reduce impervious surface as well as allow for additional green space between the buildings and the residences on the development. . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 4 Councilmember Holden asked how the entrance would be designed since it was cut into a hill. Mr, Black replied their engineer would draw the entrance up, but they did not anticipate retaining walls along the edge. Mayor Aplikowski asked if a frontage road could be designed instead of a back road. Mr. Black stated this would put an access point close to the intersection of Hamline A venue and Highway 96. He stated he did not believe the tramc engineer's would advise them doing that. Mayor Aplikowski noted when the City Hall was located on this site; they had a frontage road for access. Mr. Black stated if they had an access on Hamline Avenue it should be where it was previously located, but they were willing to look at even having a different access on Hamline. However, he believed there should be an access there, but he understood the public safety issue. Councilmember Grant noted most of the access to this development if there was not an access on Hamline A venue, would be "U" turns and he believed there was too much traffic on Highway 96 to make "U" turns. Councilmember Larson stated people could also make a turn on Highway 10 and turn around on Highway 96 to access the development. He agreed "U" turns were not the best, but he believed people would find other ways to the development if they did not want to make "U" turns. Mr. Black expressed concern about the marketability of the site if the access was limited to Highway 96. Councilmember Grant asked about uses in the new business district. Mr. Hellegers summarized the uses that could and could not be in this development. Councilmember Holden asked who would regulate what businesses went into the development. Mr. Hellegers replied the City had ordinances set up to regulate these types of activities. He noted the City also had the option of having Deed restrictions for the development. He indicated there could be some costs to the City in the future due to code enforcement. Councilmember Holden asked if there had been any neighborhood meetings held. Mr. Hellegers replied they had a neighborhood meeting in April with approximately 20 people showing up. Councilmember Holden asked if there had been an appraisal done on this property. Mr. Clark replied there was an appraisal done on November 23, 2004 by Nagell Appraisal & Consulting. Councilmember Holden asked if this property bad been advertised for sale. Mr. Clark responded in May 2004 Council directed him to proceed with selling this property and at that time there was a Letter of Intent from Royal Oaks for a townhome development, which development ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETmG MINUTES JULY 11,2005 5 . was not allowed due to the zoning. He indicated after a couple of Work Sessions, Council directed staff to see if there was other interest in the property. In January, staff had contacted three different companies to see if there was any interest in the property. In addition, over the last 12 months, the City also had a number of requests from individuals who were interested in purchasing this property for a small strip mall as well as an interest from a Charter School, which did not meet the zoning. Councilmember Holden asked how this development changed from a 40,000 square foot project to a 70,000 office condominium development. Mr. Clark replied Council had agreed to a development that was approximately 70,000 square feet not 40,000 square feet which was written into the Purchase Agreement under 11.3 of the Development Permits. He indicated one of the reasons they put this in there was that they wanted to separate out the Purchase Agreement from the Planned Unit Development process and by the City acting on the Purchase Agreement they did not want to give approval for the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Filla stated he was given the terms to be put into the agreement and the agreement indicated the general nature to be an office complex of that number of feet, but it did not obligate the City to approve this and if it was not approved by the City, the developer had the option to get out of the agreement and get his money back. . Councilmember Holden asked if this would be considered maximum density or medium density. Mr. Clark replied he believed this would be a medium density. Councilmember Larson stated he believes what the developer proposed in terms of building, were attractive and nice looking. He stated tbe development was an attractive development for a business condominium development and while he generally did not like parking in front of the buildings, but in this case they did the right thing because otherwise the parking and the parking lots would be closest to the south lot line where the residences were located. He noted by eliminating the Hamline access it would incur less impervious surface and runoff He asked why they needed even five extra parking places over the City Code if the City Code required 297 parking spots. He stated if the developer was not opposed, he would like to see the parking match the City Code. He expressed concern that the signs on the buildings were relatively large, which he believed would detract from the attractiveness of the development. He personally would like to see the signs smaller and a restriction that there was one sign per owner, even if an owner owned more than one unit. He asked about the park dedication fee and if this was the standard amount for the park dedication fee. Mr. Clark responded the park dedication fee was the amount they had agreed to in the development agreement. . Councilmember Holden stated this was a nice development, but she expressed concern about the lack of green space in this development and this was not what she had envisioned when she thought there was going to be three-unit buildings. Mayor Aplikowski stated she believed there was going to be more green space added in again. . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11, 2005 6 Councilmember Holden asked if Council was comfortable with the trail being 15 feet from the residences. Councilmember Grant noted it was 15 feet from the lot line, not from the residences. Mr. Hellegers clarified the Planning Commission wanted more space between the trail and the office building. He noted the trail would stay where it was, but the distance from the trail to the office buildings would be 15 feet, so the buildings within units 1, 2, and 3 would be shifted five feet to the east. Councilmember Grant stated one other change the Planning Commission made was that there would be low lighting on the trail behind buildings 1,2, and 3. Councilmember Holden asked what percentage of caliper trees were in the parking lot areas. Mr. Hellegers responded the majority of landscaping was against the residential areas and he did not know the exact amount of landscaping in the parking lot areas. Councilmember Holden asked if there would be landscaping next to the daycare center. Mr. Hellegers replied there was no requirement to buffer space between existing commercial properties, only existing residential. He noted there was not much room to put in landscaping in this area and there was a concern that the landscaping would not stay healthy if it was put in. Councilmember Holden asked how large the proposed wall was between the daycare and this development. Mr. Hellegers replied there was a berm being proposed, not a wall. There is a wall east of the parking lot. Councilmember Larson stated they had received some commentary from people and they also had received a copy of a newspaper article from 1991 when there was apparently a significant dispute over Royal Oaks and the City. He asked for a response to this and asked for assurance that this would not happen again. Marcell Evensteiner(?sp), Royal Oaks Development, stated in 1988 he developed Keithson Addition. He stated the City's engineer had indicated they did not need an overflow for the sewer system on the west side, which he had originally proposed in this development. He stated the City redesigned the property and when everything was completed, there was an inspection and everything was fine until two years later when the pond kept rising due to a wet season and there were homes that got flooded out. He indicated at that time when the City contacted him, he told the City that they had designed the system and it was up to the City to repair the problem. He stated the City took over and fixed the problem. Mayor Aplikowski stated when she came onto the Council, this topic had come up again and it was at that time the City changed engineers. Councilmember Holden asked what the percentage oflandscaping was. She asked if they could get it up to 35 percent. Mr. Hellegers replied right now it was at 34 percent, but they could reduce the parking some to get to the 35 percent landscaping. . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETmG MINUTES JULY 11,2005 7 Councilmember Grant asked if the City had agreed to approximately 70,000 square feet. Mr. Filla replied the agreement was approximately 70,000 square feet of office condominium. Councilmember Grant asked if the Council could reduce the number of buildings. Mr. Filla replied this would not violate the terms of the agreement, but the developer had the option of backing out of the agreement if this happened. Mr. Eibensteiner stated they were at 74,000 square feet, so he did not know where 76,000 square feet came from. Mr. Hellegers noted the original proposal came out to 76,000 square feet, but once all of the numbers had been crunched, it came to approximately 74,000 square feet. Mr. Eibennsteiner stated the Purchase Agreement was written at minimum of70,000 square feet and they were at 74,000 square feet. He stated when the appraisal came in and they could go to 74,000 square feet he decided to take the property as is for 1.4 million. Mayor Aplikowski stated the Council would take public comment for 30 minutes. Elwood F. Caldwell, 1451 Arden View Drive, stated he was representing the Arden Hills North Homes Association development with 140 units. He stated he would not repeat the testimony at the Planning Commission. He noted they were aware that the Planning Commission was a recommending body only and others might voice objections to the project as a whole. He stated it was their position not to do that, but rather in the first instance if Council did approve this that they did not weaken the 18 conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. He called their attention to condition 4, retail uses and that retail uses shall not be allowed to occupy the development, except for accessory sales. He indicated the parking could be reduced and he recommended Council reduce the parking. He stated the Planning Commission did not see fit to adopt their recommendation for wall signage. He stated 30 square feet in the sign ordinance for the NB zone was not intended for 30 units so close together and he recommended the signage be limited to a maximum of 18 square feet for the outer units, with the middle units being allowed six square feet. He noted signage was addressed under condition number 9. Jeanine Yates, 1394 Arden View Drive, stated she was concerned about the environmental impact, property depreciation, and stress for the elderly people in the area, and the lack of this developer to communicate with the residents and City. She noted the Guidant developers worked very well with the City, Council, and the residents to accommodate all of the concerns everyone had. She asked why with this development, some things were not considered that would benefit the community more also. Gail Van Buskirk, 1390 Arden View Drive, stated she opposed this development. She noted they had a coalition of residents who would be speaking on various issues. She stated this coalition had gathered 154 signatures from the resident opposing the development. She noted there was an additional 17 signatures which she presented to Council tonight. She indicated there was a broad range of locations of the residences who opposed this development. She stated the residents did not want the trees and grcen space with a parking lot. She acknowledged the City ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11, 2005 8 . owned the land, but the City was the people and the people wanted a more environmentally friendly development, such as a residential development. She asked what would happen when the vegetation was gone when this development was put in with respect to the wetland. She noted this area was a wetland area and was subject to flooding. She stated if the wetlands were classified as type 3 that these were protected wetlands which required a water management plan and she encouraged them that this was taken care of. She understood that Rice Creek Watershed would be taking care ofthis. She asked them to deny the Resolution. Erik Hauth-Schmid, 1313 Karth Lake Circle, stated he was here because this was very important to him to discuss this. He stated Karth Lake Circle had one way in and out of their development and even in the best of times, it was difficult to turn left. He stated they were very concerned about them being able to use Hamline if there was an access from this development on Hamline Avenue. He believed this would be a serious impact on their quality of life. He asked Council to consider not approving the plan as presented. He stated they were concerned that the marketing of this development should not impact their quality oflife. . Ciudy Owen, 4490 Hamline Avenue North, stated she was opposed to this development because of traffic concerns. She noted with the Guidant development, this had put a tremendous amount of traffic on Hamline Avenue. She asked Council to consider the expansion of Guidant in the next few years. She stated the people of the City lived on Hamline Avenue and asked them to consider this when voting on this property. She stated she had spoken with the Ramsey County Sheriff about this development and he had stated if he had been asked, he would have recommended the County also do a traffic study. Tony Tredal, 4521 Keithson Drive, stated tonight's meeting was very informative and thanked Council for their time. She stated if they looked at the objectives for everyone involved, the City had an objective to create tax revenue, and the developer wanted to market that particular piece of property to the best of their ability and to make a profit, and the residents wanted to not improve the property, or to delay the development of the property. She noted the Council had the power to make the decision and the residents had empowered the Council to protect the best interest ofthe residents. She suggested the Council delay this development to answer all of the concerns and questions brought forward at the various meetings. She asked Council to make sure this development met all of the City's long-term goals. She asked Council to exercise their power. . Kathy Sukke, 1286 Karth Lake Circle, stated when she moved into Karth Lake Circle, they could not go more than 35 mph on Hamline Avenue, so she appreciated the change to Hamline Avenue. She pointed out that the daycare center entrance did not mach up with Karth Lake Circle and this created a problem when both vehicles wanted to take a left. She stated she opposed the project as planned, but she did not oppose the development of the property. She stated she believed there were a lot of unanswered questions and recommended they delay a decision on this. She asked who would pay when the daycare center would flood if this development went in. She expressed concern about the safety of the neighborhood with the additional traffic, as well as the increase in police traffic on Hamline Avenue. She stated this access would not work and without the developer's traffic engineer in attendance tonight, she did not believe Council would approve ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 9 . this development and therefore this decision should be delayed. She stated she was not against development, but she wanted to see another model. She indicated they needed to consider the good ofthe community as a whole. Hallie Finucane, 1347 Arden View Drive, stated Highway 96 was a Gateway entrance to the City and thus if this development was approved, the development should meet the City's vision. She stated the proposed development must not only abide by the City Ordinances for lighting and signage, it needed to reflect a positive landscaping image for Arden Hills. She stated they were proposing the following changes to Section 2: . Landscaping Plans: Change: "The mixture of landscaping shall adequately screen the development from the residential properties to the west." to "The mixture of landscaping shall adequately screen the development from the residential properties to the west and south." Add: "Residential properties to the west and south will be screened with an 8 foot high berm, as measured from the residential property side of the berm, with evergreen trees on top." Change: "The ratio of the total number of caliper inches of the deciduous trees to coniferous trees described in PUD should be changed from an approximate 3 to I ratio to an approximate 1 to 1 ratio." Add: "Developer will provide a five-year replacement guarantee for all trees and other vegetation, including bushes and other plants, planted in the proposed development, on the berms, and in the buffer yards. Trees and other vegetation should be replaced within 6 months of dying, initiation of disease, or damage. The five years will commence upon completion of the proposed development project." Tree Preservation: Add: "Developer will replace all trees and other vegetation, including bushes and other plants, destroyed or damaged on all adjoining properties of the development due to this proposed development project with either 6 foot minimum coniferous trees or 3 inch caliper minimum deciduous trees, depending on the type of tree destroyed, or replace with other vegetation with like vegetation, witllin six months of completion of the proposed development project." Building Setback from City Trail: Change: "Units 1, 2, and 3 of the proposed development shall be set back at least .li feet from the existing trail on the west side of the Property." To "Units 1, 2, and 3 of the proposed development shall be set back at least 20 feet from the existing trail on the west side ofthe Property." . Dave Earsman, 1481 Arden View Drive, stated he would prefer the exit not come out on Hamline and they ask the Sheriffs Department to enforce the no right on turn onto Hamline Avenue off of Highway 96 because they are unable to get out of their driveways. He stated this . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 10 had to be enforced. He stated the traffic on Hamline was a "disaster waiting to happen" and traffic and access needed to be controlled. Mayor Aplikowski asked if it was anticipated once the 35W interchange was completed, would this change the nature of Hamline Avenue. Mr. Brown replied it should reduce traffic on Hamline Avenue. He indicated Guidant at some point would put in a signal at County Road F. He stated the long term would be better, but until that point this would be a problem. Mayor Aplikowski asked if adding a stop sign along Hamline Avenue, would assist with the traffic issues. Mr. Brown replied the further someone got from a traffic control, the less benefit there would be. He noted it might help some things, but it would probably hurt some things also. Councilmember Holden noted every time the Ramsey County Sheriff came down Hamline, this would also strip the signal from the residents. Mr. Brown replied that was correct. Mayor Aplikowski stated the development as proposed would not additional traffic to Hamline A venue, but she agreed they needed to look at the traffic issue on Hamline. Bonnie Lovell, 4340 Garden View Court, stated with Medtronic now being developed on Highway 10 that would be approximately 3,000 additional employees trying to get to their work, which would add to traffic on County 10. Mayor Aplikowski asked if Council wanted to table this and have a special meeting or proceed tonight. Councilmember Larson stated he believed this was a nice development, but he could not support the development with an access on Hamline. He suggested the developer look at the signage to determine if they could live with the suggested signage proposal suggestions. He asked staff and the developer to also look at the number of parking spaces to determine if it made sense to have this much parking, or whether they could get by with fewer parking spaces on the site. He stated he would support tabling this until they got the answer to those items. Councilmember Grant stated he would also like to table this and he saw problems with the access on Hamline Avenue. He stated he liked some of the ideas in the landscaping plans, but he asked they look at the berm again. He stated there were a number of issues they could not make at the bench tonight. He asked what the deadline for action was. Mr. Hellegers replied it was July 15, and they would need from the developer a written extension of the 60-day review period. Mayor Aplikowski stated she was suggesting they do this next week because at the next meeting not all of the Councilmembers would be present because of vacation schedule. She stated she wanted a portion of the Work Session to be declared as a special meeting if they could get all of their questions answered. . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 11 Councilmember Holden stated she would like to see an extra five feet for the City trail. She also would like to see building 20 be removed to ease up on the parking and add additional landscaping. Councilmember Grant stated a development of this nature (Neighborhood Business) generated less traffic than an equivalent residential neighborhood. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to table Resolution #05-45 Royal Oaks to the next regularly scheduled Work Session as a special City Council Meeting on July 18, 2005. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to amend the motion to have the special City Council meeting at 7:30 p.m. seconded by Holden asked if Councilmember Grant would make a time certain of 7:30 p.m. The amended motion carried unanimously (4- 0). The original motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mayor Aplikowski recessed the meeting at 9: 1 0 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. B. Resolution #05-46: Approval of Amended Special Use Permit for Presbvterian Homes Mr. Hellegers requested Council consider approval of Resolution No. 05-46 which would approve the Special Use Permit Amendment for an addition to the south end of McKnight Care Center on the Presbyterian Homes property in Arden Hills subject to seven conditions and also to consider approval of Special Use Permit No. 05-17. He noted the Planning Commission at their July 6,2004 meeting recommended approval subject to seven conditions as noted in staff's July 11,2005 report. Councilmember Holden stated her main concern was the garden terrace on top and the see through fence starting at 4 feet. She asked how many residents would use the garden terrace. John Mehrkens, Presbyterian Homes, replied there was a total of 52 residents in that area with staff supervision or family members taking residents up there. He stated maximum the space would accommodate was somewhere in the neighborhood of25 to 30 people. Councilmember Holden asked what kind of visual sensitivity the see through fence would have. She stated they would be intruding on the neighborhood at a higher level. Mr. Mehrkens replied the nearest resident was 210 feet away, so they had a significant distance which would address the privacy issues. In addition, inside the fenced garden area, there would be plants which would be used to add additional screening between the residents and Lake Johanna. He noted they did not " ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 12 . want this to look "fence like" or "cage like". He stated he had spoken with the landscapers and there would be wheelchair height plantings also, which would also create a buffer between them and the residents. He stated they were looking at a lot of options both for the safety of their residences as well as the concerns ofthe neighborhood. Councilmember Holden stated she was concerned about the neighborhood. Mr. Mehrkens replied this had been brought up at the neighborhood meeting and they were also aware of the site lines. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve Special Use Permit No. 05-17. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). MOTION: Mayor Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve Resolution #05-46: Approval of Amended Special Use Permit for Presbyterian Homes. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). c. l.uthorize PrcparatioR of PlaRs aRa 2006 Lift StatioR RehabilitatioR Proieet SpeeifieatioRs . Removed from the Agenda. D. Approve the appointment of Anthonv Knowlan as Operations and Maintenance Worker for the City of Arden Hills Ms. Wolfe stated with the pending retirements of Fred Bell and Fred Reed from the Operations and Maintenance Department, City staff began recruitment efforts for their replacements in early May. Based upon the interview and exam process, staff is recommending Anthony Knowlan as an Operations and Maintenance Worker. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to Anthony Knowlan as Operations and Maintenance Worker for the City of Arden Hills, subject to the successful completion of a physical, a drug test, and job evaluation assessment. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. TCAAP Update Mr. Clark updated the Council on recent TCAAP developments. . Councilmember Holden asked for a list of the strike out on the term sheets. Mr. Clark replied that would be forthcoming. . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11, 2005 13 . Councilmember Holden stated they should discuss how much of staffs time TCAAP is taking up now that they are not getting reimbursed by the developer. Councilmember Grant asked what was the value of the cost of clean up as known. Mr. Clark noted this was a starting point and they would get the perspective of the Am1y's cost of clean up. Councilmember Holden asked for more information on the insurance issue. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Ms. Wolfe - None. Councilmember Holden - Asked for an update on the diseased trees in the City. Mr. Moore replied from the residential standpoint, tree inspectors have been very busy and the residents have been working with the City to remove trees at a much greater pace than last year. Prom the City property, they were still doing inspections, but they were concentrating on residential properties first, but he anticipated they would be working more on City property in the next two or three weeks. Councilmember Grant - None. Councilmember Larson - None. Mayor Aplikowski - Stated she has visited with the Council of Long Prairie and it was interesting to note they had their own fire and police department. She noted the Mayor of Long Prairie was scheduled to meet with them on July 25. She stated at some point they needed to sit down and talk to the County about the Highway 96 and Highway 10 intersection. She stated the 35W coalition also needed to be discussed. Mayor Aplikowski adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting meeting at 9:57 p.m. ~~~~. M~~ Bever! Ap lkowski Michelle Wolfe Mayor City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, July 25, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council Chambers.