Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 08-09-1982 .- < . , Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Village of Arden Hills Monday, August 9, 1962, 7:30 p.m. VIllage Hall Ca II to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present - Mayor Robert Woodburn, CouncIlmen MaurIce Johnson, Diane McAllister, Dale Hicks, Thomas Mulcahy -. Absent - None Also Present - Attorney James Lynden, Engineer Donald Christoffersen, Planner Orlyn Miller, Treasurer Donald Lamb, Clerk Administrator Charlotte McNlesh, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Zehm Approval of Minutes Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that the Minutes of the Council Meeting of July 26th be approved as amended. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Business from the Floor None Newsletter Committee Recommendations Town Crier Editor Helen Schmidt Introduced Council to Suzanne Schroeder, 1636 Oak Avenue, whom the Newsletter Publication Committee recommends as Editor of the Town Crier to replace Johnson. It was noted Craig Johnson had advised the Committee that he would be willing to continue as Editor until a replacement could be found. Mayor Woodburn appointed Suzanne Schroeder as Editor of the Town Crier. MeAl I I stet moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council accept the resignation of Craig Johnson as Town Crier Editor, and ratifies the Mayor's appointment of Suzanne Schroeder as Editor of the Town Crier, effective Immediately.. Motion carried unanimously (5-0>' .. Committee Member Appointment Upon recommendation of the Newsletter Publication Committee, Mayor Woodburn appointed Craig Johnson as a member of the Newsletter Publication Committee. Johnson moved, seconded by McAI lister, that CouncIl ratIfy the Mayor's appoInt- ment. Motion carrIed unanimously (5-0). . REPORT OF V I LLAGE ATTORNEY JAMES L YNDEN Case No. 82-IIA. Planned Unit Development Permit for Tramm Duplex Council was referred to Lynden's letter of August 6, 1962 and attached draft of Planned UnIt Development Permit - Case No. 82-IIA, Keith A. Tramm. Johnson moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council approve execution of the Planned Unit Development Permit as proposed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Report re Mobile Home/Manufactured Houslnq Council was referred to Lynden's letters of August 4 and August 5, 1982. Lynden suggested that he meet with Planner Miller and that a Joint recommendation be made to Council relative to the legislation relating to mobile and manufactured homes. Council concurred. " Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Page Two , . , Royal Hills MaIntenance Letter of Credit Council was referred to McNlesh's memo of August 6th relative to Performance and Maintenance Bonds for grading of roads In Royal Hil Is and Arden Oaks Plats. In discussion, Christoffersen said he sees no reason for a maintenance bond once Royal HII Is Subdivision and road grade Is accepted; there Is no long term main- tenance needed; feels It is superfluous for Royal Hills, ChrIstoffersen said the Arden Oaks situation Is quite different because It contains additional grading for pond lng, etc. After discussion, Johnson moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council waive the ment Agreement requirement of a maintenance bond for Royal HII Is grading, carried unanimously (5-0). Develop- Motion . Lynden noted that the Performance Bond can be released by the Clerk Administrator after acceptance of the developer's grading by the City Engineer. Resolution to Change Name of Wesley Avenue McNlesh reported that Frank Kvidera, Acting Ramsey County Surveyor, requests a Resolution changing the name of Wesley Avenue to Arden Oaks Drive (between County Road E and the Arden Oaks plat), It was explained that there are no existing addresses on Wesley Avenue; Wesley Avenue, as it exists, Is not a continuation of an existing street In adjohllng areas. Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that the Council authorize the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate 'resolution, changing the name of Wesley Avenue to Arden Oaks Drive, from County Road E to the Arden Oaks plat. Motion. carried unanimously ( 5-0 l. REPORT OF VILLAGE ENGINEER DONALD CHRISTOFFERSEN 1982 Sealcoatlnq Contract Bids Council was referred to bid tabulation of three bids received on August 5th for 1982 bituminous sealcoating, Christoffersen said the EngIneer's estimate was $38,000; recommends acceptance of the low bid of $36,820.20 by All ied Blacktop. In discussion, It was noted that $28,000 was budgeted for the 1982 sealcoatlng pro- ject; acceptance of the low bid will be $8,800 over the budget. One alternative suggested was to reduce the size of the project. Christoffersen explained that the bid Is based on quantities; streets In 1982 project are wider than those In the 1981 project, consequently, even though the miles of streets are approximately the same, there Is a difference in the quantitIes needed to complete the project. .. McNlesh noted that the 1982 General Fund is about $14,000 under the budgeted amount; General Fund could probably absorb the difference between the actual and budgeted amount for sealcoatlng. After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by Johnson, that Council accept and award the contract to AI lied Blacktop In the amount of $36,820.20. carried unanimously (5-0). the low bid Motion Improvement No. ST-81-2, Storm Dralnaqe - Payment No.8, Lamettl & Sons, Inc. Council was referred to Christoffersen's letter of August 4, 1982 relative to & Sons' request for a reduction of retalnage from 5% to 2% for Payment No.8, Lexington Avenue/I-694 St9rm Drainage Improvement, ST-81-2. Christoffersen said he anticipates the project will be completed within two weeks; at 2%, the balance wll I be about $14,785, which Is sufficient retalnage for com- pletion of the project. . Lametti Hicks moved, seconded by Johnson, that Councl I accept the project as SUbstantIally complete and authorize reduction of retalnage to 2%. Motion carried unanimously (5-0), -2- < Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Page Three Status of Roval Hills Gradln~ Christoffersen reported that the roads in Royal HII Is have been graded, he has not checked to see that al I grading requirements of the Development Agreement have been met; noted that the lots are currently stockpiled; developer, In his previous developments, graded the lots at time of construction thereon. REPORT OF VILLAGE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER Case No. 82-16, Resubdlvlslon of Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block I, Arden HII Is, Evle Kiene-Dunn . Miller briefly reviewed Council's previous consideration of the proposed resub- division of three lots Into two lots; noted that Council action is pending the City Engineer's recommendations on how to handle potential drainage of the proposed resubdlvlslon; noted that the proposed resubdlvlslon requires no variances, and the newly created lot with access on Arden Place, creates an acceptable build- Ing site with relatively minor grading. ~_. ~.~x9Ia ned that ~~~e is a 20 foot sewer easement along the east of the 10t;Arnrnor~ wo~caur on the south portion of the lot and would be sufflclent.to ge a house above the street; noted that a basement should be above 902.4 elevation. Christoffersen said that building a house on this lot would not cause drainage problems for other houses In the Immediate area; It appears water would go to the east to an existing drainage area, or south across the street to an existing drainage area. . Mulcahy moved, seconded by McAllister, that Council approve the minor subdivision of Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block I, Arden Hills, as proposed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Case No. 82-18, Site Pian Review and Parking Setback Variances for Office/Warehouse Development Council was referred to Planning memo (7-28-82), Board of Appeals report (7-31-82) and Planning Commission Minutes (8-4-82). A transparency of the site plan was shown depicting a proposed 26,600 square foot office/warehouse bUilding, with access to Red Fox Road. Miller noted that the site Is bounded by public right-of-way on three sides; the ordinance requires that no parking shall be within 20 feet of any right-of-way tine of a public street, which Is Intended to provide landscaped space between the parking area and the street. Miiler explained that the ciosest part of 1-694 Is 870 feet from the north property line and the Highway 51 ramp Is 80 feet from the west property line; stated that he has Indicated to the developer that the setback variances proposed may be acceptable If that landscaped~pace Is provided elsewhere on the site (along the south and east sides of the site). Mi.LJer said the proposed plan places the majority of that open space along the east side to accommodate a major drainage swale which serves as the overflow from the larger pond north of the site. Miller said 42 parking spaces are proposed which will accommodate 20% office and 80% warehouse; reported that the developer's ieaslng experience has Indicated that similar buildings have approximately 15% office and 85% warehouse space relationship; noted that the proposed parking is adequate, If the percentages are accurate. Engineer Christoffersen noted that the existing drainage ditch on the northeast portion of the site Is proposed to be relocated; sees no problem with the relocation, but applicant should contact MN DOT and RCWD relative to the drainage plan. Christ- offersen said this parcel Is not Identified as one required to provide pondlng (ditch acts as a ponding area). Christoffersen said RCWD will probably require control structures for water quality at points of discharge. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals recommends denial of the parking setback variances because It found no hardship of the land; Planning Commission recommends approval of the variances contingent upon the items listed In the Planning Report (7-28-82), except Item b, Revision of entrance to site If determined feasible by City Engineer. Miller reported that the Planning Commission felt the proposed dock location would be satisfactorily screened as proposed. Mr. Tim Nelson, Corporate Counsel for J.L.N. Development, Inc., explained that the existing green space at the west and north of the site, between the property lines -3- Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Page Four > and roadways, seem to meet the Intent of the ordinance to provide a landscaped area between the parking and the street; proposed site plan, therefore, places the building with a wider than required setback from the east property line (28' - 20' required) to give more separation between this structure and future development to the east. (Johnson left the meeting) Janis Blumental, Architect, said their engineering firm, BRW, has been working with the Highway Department relative to drainage adjustment; wll I submit plans for their approval; are adjusting grading to save as many trees as possible; will put In a retaining wal I, If necessary, to maintain elevations; has no problem with adding additional trees as suggested by the City Planner. Blumental said he . would prefer to screen the dock area with landscaping rather than with a block wall. Engineer Christoffersen said he has not reviewed the plan In detail; noted the location of a meter station near the southwest corner of the property, would be concerned about a driveway crossing there; asked If the developer has checked availability of sewer and water to the site; does not recal I whether this site has sewer at present. Monica Tuggle (resident) noted that there are no ponds at this site now; said there was standing water previously In that area. Concern was expressed relative to the Intensive lot coverage and the possible need for more parking. Blumental said normal warehouse would be 10%-15% office, 85%-90% warehouse; feels proposed parking Is more than adequate. In discussion, It was suggested that the building be moved to the east and the drainage ditch changed to a pipe. Christoffersen said he thought the ditch would be preferable because pipe Is dIfficult to maintain; also provides no absorbtlon. Another concern was granting variances "because It doesn't bother anybody"; suggested the basis for granting the variances could be the existence of the drainage ditch on the property, which must remain, Blumental said the circumstances of this property are unusual because of the wide separation between It and the two roadways; feels the ordinance was Intended for the normal conditions. After discussion, McAllister moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council approve the building permIt and variances requested, contlQgent upon the Items listed on Page 3 of Planning memo (7-28-82), a through d, and subject to resolution of park dedication. Motion did not carry (Hicks, Mulcahy voting In favor of the motion; McAllister, Woodburn voting In opposition). (2-2). It was suggested that the applicant find a solution to development of the properfy, without variances, probably a sma I ler building, and provision for some screening of the parking area from Highway 51. Case No. 82-13, Lot Spilt at 1893 Beckman Avenue Council was referred to Planning memo (7-14-82) relative to options available for splitting and developing the 150' x 150' lot. Transparencies were shown of the three options: I. Two 75' lots with 50' setback from New Brighton Road, provides a 20' x 60' building envelope, which Is not considered adequate. 2. Two 75' lots with 40' setback from New Brighton Road, provides a 30' x 60' building envelope; would provide a flexible build- Ing envelope, but violates the "prevailing setback" provision of the ordinance. . 3. Shift lot line to provide 5' minimum setback from the existing house, creating two lots (79' corner and 71' easterly lot). If 50' setbacK, building envelope of 60' x 24' Is provided, but relationship to the existing and future houses Is not very des I rab I e. After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council deny the lot spl It. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). -4- . Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Page Fl ve It was suggested that If a specific proposal for development of the property were presented, possibly expansion of the existing structure as another option, Its Impact on the existing houses In the area could be more easily ascertained. Case No. 82-17, Sldeyard Variance for Single-family Home, Glen E. and Kirsten Dawson Council was referred to Board of Appeals report (Aug. 4, 1982), Planning Commission minutes (Aug. 4, 1982) and to Planning memo (7-28-82). . Miller explained that the lot is 75' wIde and has frontage on both Siems Court and Rldgewood Court; proposed house Is 56' wide. Miller said a 10' setback will be provided at the north lot line and a 9' setback at the south lot line, requiring a 6' variance from the 25' aggregate setback required. Miller explained that the main portion of the house Is 50' x 32', with a 6' x 7' entry on the south end; a walkout house Is proposed because of the topography of the lot; access to the upper' level of the house Is desired from the 6' x 7' entry, rather than directly Into the living room; lower level of the house is the utility area. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals recommends denial of the variance, because It did not find a hardship of the land; feels house Is Improperly designed for the lot; reported that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, because of lack of serious visual or functional Impact on adjoining properties and because of the hardship of the substandard lot width and steep topography. Mr. Dawson showed a picture to Council of the lot's steep slope; explained that an alternate to the proposed entry would be from a deck, which they do not desire; want an alternative to entering only from the lower level and up toe stairway to the kltchen.d Mr. Dawson showed the house plans to Council. In discussion, It was noted that a deck entry would satisfy the fire requIrement for two entrances) queried the chances that guests would come to the side entry. Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council deny the requested sideyard setback variance. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Case No. 82-15, Resubdivlslon of Lots 16 and 17, Block 3, Shady Oaks Addition, Heinrich Loos Miller referred Council to a transparency of an alternate 3-lot resubdlvlslon of Lots 16 and 17, which eliminates the lot width variances previously proposed, and creates a "panhandle lot" with 20' wide access to Old Highway 10. Miller said the altered lot line between Lots 16 and 17 places the existing house 10' from- the side property line and garage 6' from the side property line (10' required); noted that the "panhandle lot" requires a variance from the required ful I lot width on a publIc street. Miller reviewed the pros and cons of "flag" lots; noted that this lot Is adjacent to a commsrclal parking lot, which adversely Impacts the property to a greater extent than the panhandle/driveway would. Mr. Loos explained that this 20' access also eliminates the need for direct access to Snel ling Avenue (Old Highway 10) for Lot A; proposes that Lot A also gain access to the panhandle via an easement across the rear of Lot B; all three lots would access at one point to Snelling. . (Johnson returned to the meeting) In discussion, concern was expressed relative to squables occurlng if all use a common driveway; maintenance and parking problems were anticipated. also noted that the commercial parking lot may not always be there. Mr. LooS described the stepped topography of the property, and noted the three definite areas for building sites. Loos said he proposes the easement access for Lot A because of the steep terra-In to Snel ling Avenue; lot can access directly to Snelling Avenue from a "tuck under" garage and turn-around driveway; prefers the one-access approach. Loos said the property Is very large and easily accommodates three lots. 3 lots It was Johnson expressed concern relative to a 3-party common driveway; feels 2-party may work out, but feels 3 on a common road may cause bad neighbor relationships. -5- Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Page Six After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council deny the three lot resubdlvlslon. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Vacation of Right-of-Way - "Llndey's Trlanqle" Council was referred to Miller's memo of 7-29-82 relative to potential sub- division of the "Lindey's TrJangle" property. After discussion, MeAl lIster moved, seconded by Hicks, that McNlesh convey Council's unanimous position that the easement be retained by the County for the reasons stated at tonight's meeting: I. Openness of area Is needed for sight distance at the busy Intersection of Snel ling/Johanna Blvd./ County Road E. . 2. Open area provides needed space for snow storage In winter. 3. Council feels the residents In the area purchased their property across the service road knowing of the open highway right-of-way easement and In effect paid for the open space. 4. There was never an expectation of likelihood that the road right-of-way would become marketable and develpped Into a lot or two. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Proposal re Pedestrian Way between 3740-45 McCracken Lane - Jim Strauss and Dick Larson Jim Strauss presented the problems he and his neighbor, Dick Larson, have experi- enced relative to the pedestrlan- way that runs between their properties: I. Wind blows chips allover their lawns - a nuisance to have to rake them back before mowing the grass. 2. Weeds and grass grows thru the chips; no edging was placed to define the paths; consequently, It always looks over- gown and unsightly. 3. Width of path encourages Its mis-use; trucks have driven on it on occasion - even had a concrete truck drive on It. 4. More bicycles use the path than pedestrians. Strauss said this type of path would probably be o.k. In an open, wild area, but Is not appropriate In a landscaped area. Strauss reported that he discussed the problems with Parks Director Buckley; path has been dug out and Buckley suggested It be re-surfaced with ag-I ime to be paid for by Larson and Strauss. Strauss said It seems unreasonable that they should pay for it, especially when they are not sure the ag-Ilme will be-satisfactory and . that weeds would not grow through It. Strauss suggested Council consider the following proposal that he feels will go a long way to solve the problem: I. City provide concrete rounds, black dirt, sod and labor. 2. Pre-cast rounds be used to introduce the pathway to pedestrians at the street (4-6 rounds at entrance to the path-way) - entrance be "signed". 3. Adjacent property owners Install sporadic plantlngs on either side of the pathway to define It as It goes between the yards. 4. Property owners adjacent to pathway maintain It as they do their yards. -6- . . . Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Page Seven . . Buckley said they used ag-Ilme on the pathway from Norma Avenue to Floral Park- an undeveloped area at present; In Brlarknoll, adjacent residents have sodded the pathway area between their homes. Buckley said he wants the paths Identified and used; does not feel maintenance of the proposed concrete rounds would be a problem; currently, posts are Instal led at the beginning of each pathway. Buckley said the pathway rlght-of-ways are of different widths; admitted that the Identification of the pathway Is difficult to discern from private property In some Instances. Johnson suggested that Parks Director prepare creative Identification of the pathways to resolve the confusion. Strauss asked Council approval of his proposal on a trial basis; path has been dug out and will be an area of weeds and mud, If something Is not done now. Hicks moved, seconded by MulcahY, that Council authorize the expenditure of up to $200 to up-grade the pedestrian way with sod and concrete rounds as described. Motion carried (Hicks, Mulcahy, Johnson, Woodburn voting In favor; MeAl lister voting In opposition.) (4-1). (Buckley was requested to refer the matter of trail surfacing, Identification and maintenance to the Parks Committee for their recommendations to Council.) PARK DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS Lighting at Hazelnut Park Council was referred to Buckley's memo of August 6, 1982, relative to two bids for the lighting of the Hazelnut Park hockey rinks. Buckley recommended that Linehan be awarded the contract. After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that Council award the contract to LInehan Electric at a cost of $2,258. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Riding Lawn Mower Council was referred to Buckley's memo of August 6, 1982, relating to 1982 Capital Outlay Purchase of a 72" Toro Grounds Master. Buckley said he proposes to not trade the Jacobsen, but would use It for back up and for snow blowing of Ice rinks; recommends the purchase of the Toro with 15 hours on It from Minnesota Toro; said he proposes no additional park maintenance employees. In discussion, concern was expressed relative to how parks will be maintained when no more park dedication monies are available; also of concern were the two existing mowers which sound like they are pretty wel I worn. Buckley said they are getting good maintenance; all mowers have some "down time"; has experienced less "down time" with Toro than Jacobsen mowers. Buckley said with the three mowers all the parks Including Cummings (when It Is developed) can be maintained; If additional ball fields and parks are developed, would probably need an additional mower. Buckley advised that addi- tional parks development Is anticipated at: . - North Snel ling (south of Highway 96) - South of Round Lake - Crepeau Park - Pedestrian Pathways Buckley said that,.to date, the City has acquired park land and developed and maintained the parks with dedication money; when dedication Is over, then a bond Issue will probably be necessary to maintain the parks. After discussion, McAllister moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council authorl ze the purchase of the 72" Toro Grounds Master (demonstrator) from Minnesota Toro; Plymouth Minnesota, at a cost of $7,916.00. Motion carried (McAllister, Hicks, Mulcahy, Woodburn voting In favor of the motion; Johnson voting In opposition) (4-1). -7- , Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Page Eight . . , (Buckley was requested to memo Council on the hours of use on each of the two riding mowers now owned by the Parks Department.l Discussion of Public Works Union Contract Proposal Woodburn asked Council's In-put relative to a counter proposal. It was the Council's general concensus that Woodburn offer a counter proposal of a 2-year contract and wage Increase of 6%/5%. It was Council's understanding that the counter proposal would leave room for negotiations. McNlesh reported she put a 20% multiplier on the City and employee share for health/life Insurance for budgeting because of past history of claims. REPORT OF VILLAGE CLERK ADMINISTRATOR CHARLOTTE McNIESH . Claims and Payroll McAllister moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council approve the Claims and Payroll as submitted. Motion carried unanimously (5-0>. Approval of Election Judges McNlesh noted that a few vacancies exist, which she Is attempting to fill. Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that Council approve the Election Judges as listed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0l. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Shorevlew Noise Ordinance McNlesh reported that Shorevlew has adopted a noise ordinance; wll I obtain a copy and make copies for Council. Woodburn asked that Bloomington's noise ordinance also be copied for Council. Hamllne/Floral Sketches McNlesh reported that Engineer anticipates having sketches of Hamllne/Floral turn lane options at the next meeting. Adjournment Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that the meeting adjourn at 1:12 a.m. Motion carried unanimously (5-0>, .. ~/c!,J.7Z?, MY;2~ Charlotte McNlesh Clerk Administrator tf~~ Robert L. Woodburn Mayor Notice of Meetings: August 23rd - 7:30 p.m. - Special Council Meeting - Assessment Hearings, ~ Village Hall August 30th - 7:30 p.m. - Regular Council Meeting, V III age Ha II . . . Addendum Minutes of Regular Council MeetIng Village of Arden HIlls August 9, 1982 REPORT OF VILLAGE TREASURER DONALD LAMB Investments July 28, 1982 - $100,000 at Oak Park Heights State Bank for one year at 12.50% Interest, maturing on Julv 28, 1983. July 29, 1982 - $100,000 at First National, st. Paul, for 30 days at 10.50%, maturIng August 30, 1982. Johnson moved, seconded by McAllister, to ratify the Treasurer's Investments. Motion carrIed unanimously (5-0). RefinIsh Exterior of Vflla~e Hall After Council review of Johansen's memo of August 6, 1982, McAllister moved, seconded by Hicks, that MOrtensen & Son be awarded the bId to refinish the exterIor of the Village Hall at a cost of $2,652.00. Motion carrIed unanimously (5-0).