Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 10-10-1989 MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING . TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 - 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Sather called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL The roll being called, the following members were present: Mayor Thomas Sather, Councilmembers JoAnn Growe, Nancy Hansen, Thomas Mahowald and Paul Malone. Also present: Clerk Administrator Gary Berger, City Attorney Jerry Filla, City Planner John Bergly and Administrative Secretary Mary Ann DeLaRosa. ADOPT AGENDA Councilmember Malone moved, seconded by Councilmember Hansen to adopt the agenda as submitted. Motion carried~ (5-0). APPROVE MINUTES Councilmember Hansen moved, seconded by Councilmember Malone to approve the September 18 Budget minutes, September 25 Regular minutes and October 2 Special minutes as submitted. Motion carried, (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Mahowald moved, seconded by Council- member Growe, to approve the Consent Calendar for the October 10 meeting and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein: . a. Acknowledgement of PCA fact sheet on Arsenal. b. Acknowledgement of League of Minnesota Cities notice on truth in taxation. c. Acknowledgement of hazardous waste storage and treatment permits for rCAAP. d. Acknowledgement of Ramsey County home rule charter materials. e. Approval of the list of claims and payroll. Motion carried, (5-0). HEARING, SHARMA Mayor Sather opened the meeting for the purpose of a EASEMENT public hearing to consider the vacation of a drainage VACATION and utility easement, noting that the request had been withdrawn by the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Raghu Sharma. Mayor Sather then closed the public hearing at 7:33 P.M. No Council action was taken. RV PARKING Council acknowledged receipt of a memorandum from CSO Dick Cieminski, who had responded to a Council request for a survey of surrounding cities' ordinances relative to parking/storage of recreational vehicles in residential districts. Councilmember Malone asked Attorney Filla if he had reviewed the survey and if he thought Arden Hills' ordinances were more restrictive than other cities regulations and also if the survey response applied to Arden Hill's concerns. Malone noted he is not particularly interested in amending the City's ordinance, and suggested that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission. . City Attorney Filla indicated that he would also research this matter. Malone moved, seconded by Growe to forward this matter to the Planning October 10, 1989 Council Minutes, Page Two . Commission for their review and recommendation at the November 13 City Council meeting. Motion carried, (5-0). CASE #89-15, MINOR Planner Bergly noted the request is to divide a parcel SUBD., WEAVER/ of land located in the northeast corner of the City, WEGLEITNER east of Hamline and south of Amble Road. Bergly reviewed the platting history of the area, noting that the area including this parcel was approved as a final plat in 1978, but the plat was never recorded. He stated that Council accepted the proposed drainage easement as satisfaction of park dedication requirements, but because the plat was never recorded, neither was the drainage easement. The easement now proposed is 34 feet narrower than the initial proposed easement. Bergly noted that two parcels are proposed for the site, one containing 14,000 square feet, and the other to be 23,000 square feet. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 4, 1989, recommended approval of the subdivision subject to several conditions. Councilmember Malone asked if wording should be added, stating that no fill may occur on the easement area, and also expressed concern over proposed basement elevations. Bergly indicated that the perimeter grade would be one foot above the 100 year storm elevation. . Mr. Wegleitner, realtor representing the applicants, Tom and Jerry Weaver, said he would have no problem with fill not being allowed on the easement area. After further discussion, Councilmember Malone moved, seconded by Councilmember Hansen, to approve Case No. 89-15, minor subdivision of the west 284 feet of the east 392 feet of Lot 7, Borstad Addition, subject to the following: 1. The City Engineer approve the engineering aspects of the division, including drainage, easement and grading. 2. The City Attorney approve the legal aspects of the division, including descriptions and filing requirements. 3. The park dedication issue be resolved by Council liaison with input from the Park Director and Park Board if deemed necessary. 4. The site grading be performed in conjunction with the construction of the home on Parcel A. 5. The minimum elevation of the site grade at the building perimeter on both lots be no lower than 976.2. 6. That no considerations for setback variances be given for Parcel A. 7. That conditions 1, 2, and 3 be satisfied prior to filing of the plat, and conditions 4 and 5 be satisfied prior to building permit issuance. 8. That convenants be added stating no fill will be allowed on the easement areas. . Motion carried, (5-0). u October 10, 1989 Council Minutes, Page Three . CASE 1189-17, Planner Bergly noted that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. VARIANCES, Charles St. Sauver, 3435 Siems Court, requested a ten ST. SAUVER foot front yard and 20 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a new home on the lot. Bergly indicated that the existing home would be more costly to bring up to code than constructing a new home on the property, and that if setback requirements were adhered to, a 20'x20' home would be the largest that could be constructed on the lot. He noted that a normal building envelope would be for a 70'x77' home, but because of the topography, this was not possible and still meet setback requirements also. Bergly said that both the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission had recommended approval of the requested variances with conditions. Councilmember Hansen asked if the DNR Shoreline regulations would affect the placement of the new home and suggested that this should be checked on, since there are DNR requirements if construction takes place within 100 feet of a shoreline. After further discussion, Councilmember Malone moved, seconded by Councilmember Growe, to approve Case No. 89-17, granting a 10 foot front yard and 20 foot lakeshore variance to allow construction of a new single family home at 3435 Siems Court, based on the following: 1. The building envelope is substantially smaller on this lot than on typical lots in the City and would allow only a 20'x20' structure. . 2. More than 50% of the homes on the cul-de-sac have front yards and lakeshore setbacks that are equivalent to or less than those requested on this site. 3. The proposed home will be similar with other nearby homes in terms of height, scale and irregular placement on the lot. 4. Granting the variances will allow the new home to be located with less non-conformity in terms of side yards and lakeshore setbacks than the existing home. 5. The variances will not impair the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public, nor will it be contrary to the intent and purposes of the comprehensive plan or City ordinances. and subject to the following: 1. Approval by Rice Creek Watershed District, if necessary. 2. Underground burial of new utility lines. Motion carried, (5-0). CASE 1188-30, COOK Since this item had been before Council twice already, FINAL SITE PLAN! Planner Bergly reviewed the following items the PLAT APPROVAL Planning Commission discussed in their review and approval of October 4, 1989: 1. Approval of the building exteriors, elevations, materials and colors. 2. Building floor plans and bedroom mix. 3. Site plan approval. . 4. Public easement dedication of the trailway!emergency access path with mainenance of the trailway to be the property owner's responsibility, and contingent upon review and recommendation of the City Attorney. October 10, 1989 Council Minutes, Page Four . 5. Bituminous surface on the trailway which meets design standards as recommended by the City Engineer. 6. Landscape plan subject to review and approval by the City Planner. 7. A revised lighting plan be submitted for Planning Commission review, to include information relative to illumination controls and type of fixtures and safety factors for the parking areas. The Commission also recommended approval of the final plat subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, and that the proposed easement be filed and recorded as part of the plat. Planner Bergly noted the general landscape plan is fine, even though it has been reduced from the original plan. He indicated that it is not really detailed enough to indicate where plantings will be placed and should be more detailed. Councilmember Mahowald questioned if the trail is to be a pedestrian trail, or if it is to be used as originally planned, as a fire lane to provide access to the rear of the buildings for emergency access. He suggested that a trail abutting 1-694 is not a good choice, and noted that a trail near the lake would be a better placement. Clerk Administrator Berger noted that he had spoken to Parks Director Buckley who indicated . that a public path south of the development would be undesireable. Councilmember Growe asked who will maintain the access if the trail is gravel. Bergly responded that it would be the developer's responsibility. Councilmember Malone stated that access easements should be filed by the developer. He also noted that no lighting plan had been submitted and this was the third time the Council was asked to take action on this plat. Malone was almost ready to table approval until the developer could present the entire picture to the City Council. Mayor Sather stated that if the trail is private, it should be maintained by the developer, but if the trail is public, it should be publicly maintained. City Attorney Filla noted that this could become a problem of enforcement and that private easements are maintained by a private developer and public easements are maintained by the public. Councilmember Mahowald noted he asked the developer, Chuck Cook, to hold off on a park dedication until after plat approval. Mayor Sather suggested that this could wait until closer to when a certificate of occupancy is requested, since the C/O would not be issued until the park dedication is satisfied. Planner Bergly reminded the Council that a 26,100 square foot park dedication is included as part of this plat, and if final plat approval is given, this area would also be included as part of the plat approval. . After further discussion, Councilmembers Malone and Mahowald suggested this request be tabled for a month. October 10, 1989 City Council Minutes, Page Five . Councilmember Malone moved, seconded by Councilmember Mahowald, to table action on this item to the November 13 City Council meeting pending resolution of the park dedication and an acceptable lighting plan. Motion carried, (5-0) . Planner Bergly noted that a Developer's Agreement will be prepared for this plat and asked if it should be available before or after plat approval. Mayor Sather stated the Developer's Agreement should be subsequent to City Council action. SIGN REQUEST Mr. Gene Novak, 1190 Tiller Lane, was present to request installation of two "Caution-Children Playing" signs in his neighborhood. Councilmember Hansen noted that Mr. Novak had made his initial request at the Public Safety/Works Commission meeting on September 21 and also informed the Council that in her survey of other cities and engineers, the concensus was that signs are of little benefit, and may have a negative impact on safety. She suggested that the requested signs are not appropriate and that perhaps the neighborhood could be patrolled more often. Councilmember Mahowald thought a different approach should be taken and that the City should err on the side of safety. He noted that if the sign request is important enough for sixteen neighbors to request it, the City should be responsive to the community and be "user friendly". . Mr. Novak noted that he surveyed other areas in Shoreview and half of the neighbors felt the signs did help, while the others had no opinion. Councilmember Malone concurred with Hansen's statements and said he did not think the signs would be beneficial. It was his opinion that adding a sign does not make a significant difference one way or the other. Councilmember Growe asked Mr. Novak if the cars are speeding. Mr. Novak responded that yes, the street is dangerous and there are young families with children moving into the neighborhood. Councilmember Growe said she would be in favor of the sign installations. Councilmember Growe moved, seconded by Councilmember Mahowald, to approve the sign installations as requested. Motion carried, (3-2, Hansen, and Malone opposed). KEM MILLING Council acknowledged receipt of a letter from Mr. Rolfe Worden, attorney for Kem Milling, indicating terms by which Darling and Company would sell the Kem Milling site to the City. The terms included a purchase price of $440,000 for the site as is, with cash at closing on October 31, 1989. Mr. Tim Guzek was present and advised the Council that Kem personnel had been securing the site the last few weeks, and that the purchase price had . been lowered from the original price of $550,000 as a benefit to the City. City Attorney Filla noted that the City does not have an exact cost of site clean-up. Mr. Guzek noted that the MPCA has a clean-up fund which ----------------- October 10, 1989 Council Minutes, Page Six . the City could apply to for reimbursement of 90% of the clean-up costs. Councilmember Malone moved, seconded by Councilmember Growe, to offer a purchase price to Kern Milling of $385,000 for the site as is, with a closing date of Friday, October 13, 1989. Motion carried, (5-0). Clerk Administrator Berger noted he would speak to Treasurer Frank Green on fund status and Attorney Filla suggested putting the funds in an escrow account until after the title search is done. Mr. Guzek indicated that any remaining items in the building could be removed within 7-10 days and that he would expect a response from Kern officials on the purchase offer by October 11. SHOREVIEW/ City Attorney Filla distributed two new pages to ARSENAL UTILITY replace the first two pages of the Sanitary Sewer and AGREEMENT Water Main Extension and Service Agreement Shoreview - Department of Army, Army Reserve Center, noting that the new page one, under Section III. (A) (1) , includes Shoreview in the site development plan review. Filla noted that this is the only change in that particular agreement and that the Army has a signed agreement, and Shoreview is willing to sign an agreement, pending Arden Hills' approval. Attorney Filla also noted that County Road I improvements will be . constructed on the south side of the fire station as opposed to the north side. Filla also distributed a new Apportionment of Fees Agreement, which added two new items, D and E on page 2. Shoreview's Public Works Director Chuck Ahl was present and asked that Council reconsider the imposition of a 10% surcharge on quarterly utility rates, noting that this would probably only raise an additional $100-$150 per year, plus this would mean renegotiating with the Arsenal, which Shoreview preferred not to have to do. Mr. Ahl also noted that the "long form" agreement addresses Arden Hills' concerns raised at the October 2 work session. Councilmember Malone questioned how Shoreview could speak for the Army in this new agreement, when these concerns were not addressed in the original agreement. Mr. Ahl responded that he feels Shoreview has the authority to speak for the Army. Councilmember Mahowald expressed disappointment with the new document and stated it was his feeling that the new agreements did not adequately address the concerns the Arden Hills Council had discussed on October 2. City Attorney Filla indicated that Shoreview was asking Arden Hills to reconsider the surcharge issue, therefore that issue was not covered in the new document. He noted that Shoreview will use MSA funding to help pay improvement costs on the east side of Lexington Avenue. . Councilmember Mahowald noted that at the October 2 work session, it was agreed that Arden Hills wanted the agreement to be a "three-party" ---------- October 10, 1989 Council Minutes, Page Seven agreement. The new agreement was not three-party; it was still only between Shoreview and the Arsenal. . Mayor Sather commented that the Army will do what it wants, either with or without Arden Hills or Shoreview and since the Army will fund Lexington Avenue improvements, this is as good as an agreement as the City could get. Councilmembers Hansen and Malone concurred and stated that this matter should be put to rest. Councilmember Hansen moved, seconded by Councilmember Malone, to approve the Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Extension and Service Agreement Shoreview - Department of Army, Army Reserve Center, between the Army and Shoreview, dated and executed by the Army on August 21, 1989, as presented on October 10, 1989. Motion carried, (4-1, Mahowald opposed). Councilmember Malone moved, seconded by Councilmember Hansen, to approve the Utility Extension Agreement, Apportionment of Fees, City of Arden Hills, City of Shoreview. Motion carried, (4-1, Mahowald opposed). Mayor Sather thanked the Shoreview officials for their attendance at the meeting. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Growe questioned if the plantings at MCGUIRE'S INN McGuire's Inn would screen the satellite dish or if the dish was being relocated. She suggested that it either be screened or removed. Staff was directed to check on this matter. . GATEWAY BUSINESS Councilmember Malone asked about the Gateway Business DISTRICT District zoning and if there was final action taken on this particular zoning district. Administrator Berger indicated that Council passed a motion creating a moratorium on the zoning, but that the special business district was not created. Councilmember Malone requested that this matter be placed back on a future Council agenda for final action. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Hansen asked if the receptionist position had been advertised yet. It was noted that the ad was published in the October 8 issue of the Dispatch and Tribune and would be in the October 9 issue of the New Brighton Bulletin. Councilmember Mahowald asked what items would be on the October 16 work session agenda and was informed that a personnel ordinance would be discussed. Mayor Sather asked that City Attorney Filla attend this meeting. ADJOURN Councilmember Mahowald that Motion carried, (5-0). ATTEST: . ~~~ Gary R. Berger, Clerk Administrator -