Loading...
10/16/2006 - City Council - Regular - Minutes Council Meeting – 10/16/06 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2006 7:30 P.M. – CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Friesen, Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl; Others present: Ken Adolf, Engineer; Dan Petrik, Planner; Nancy Beck and Tom Seifert, Attorneys; Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to modify the agenda and add Tom Geib to the public forum. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – October 2, 2006 Motion by Reinhardt and seconded by Hughes to approve the minutes for the Cou ncil Meeting October 2, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. PUBLIC FORUM Tom Geib, 4550 West Arm Road, asked if he needs a variance to add parking on the side of his lot. He stated the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) has asked property owners to remove all personal property from their land. He said he sent something to the City planner and asked if the next step was to apply for a variance. Rockvam asked Geib what he wanted to do. Geib said he wanted to put in more asphalt to add additional parking. Petrik stated the ordinance requirement for driveways is it shall meet the same setbacks as structures. He referred to page 47, item 6 b. Petrik said this should be discussed at the next moratorium workshop. Williamson asked if those requirements included all zoning districts in the City and was told yes. Petrik pointed out this needed to be addressed because of the setback requirement from the street. He also pointed out impervious surface right up to the property line can create drainage problems. Rockvam said it could be sloped to drain the other way. He suggested the area not be a hard surface and class five gravel could be used. Petrik said any impacted surface is considered impervious; a variety of things could be done to improve impervious surface. Williamson pointed out the residents along the HCRRA corridor are being denied use of property they have been using for years and we ought to be taking a flexible attitude with Council Meeting – 10/16/06 2 these property owners that are trying to comply with the HCRRA. He said there is no reference in the ordinance index to driveways and there is lack of clarity in the ordinance. Williamson suggested, until we take different action, we should allow vehicle parking for these property owners. Rockvam verified the parking would be on the side of the garage. Widmer asked how much space is between the house and the lot line. Geib said it was 10’2”. Rockvam asked if this is something we have to decide on right away. Geib said according to the HCRRA they want things moved within three weeks. He noted leasing is not an option but they previously had a lease from Dakota Rail. Rockvam said the Council would like to review this ahead of time and in theory they agree but the problem is we hav e an ordinance regarding this and we do not want to set a precedent. He requested this be on the agenda for the moratorium meeting and the Council hold off on a decision until this is done. He said the Council cannot allow Geib to go ahead with the parking pad if he has to have a variance. Rockvam pointed out they do not want to set a precedent and be arbitrary and no solution can be reached at this meeting. Geib asked if he needs a variance or not. Reinhardt pointed out it does not seem fair to have a zero setback in a commercial district. Williamson said we have not followed this in the past. Rockvam stated the Council agrees they want to help Geib solve this problem but we have to figure out a way to do this and still keep within the confines of the ordinance. He said he does not look at a driveway or pad in the same way as a structure. Rockvam pointed out this is not a surprise from the HCRRA. One question is what do the neighbors think and do they all have pads, etc. Geib said they were lead to believe in 2002 they could lease from the HCRRA and now they cannot. Rockvam asked if this changes the hardcover requirement on the property. Reinhardt asked Petrik if he had any recommendations at this point. Petrik said this should go through the proper channels. Rockvam suggested Geib use gravel on the area over the winter. Seifert referred to undo hardship and said it is hard to see a pad as a hardship and told Geib it would be difficult to get a variance. Williamson said it could be a matter of a policy statement and it could be indicated it is the Council’s view that the unique circumstances of the railroad’s view is an undue hardship. Seifert said if the Council drafts an exception to the ordinance it has to apply to everyone and Rockvam agreed. Williamson said if do not do something reasonably in an orderly and proper way we will create other problems and it is important to have a reasonable option. Rockvam said the Council would support gravel over the winter and next spring review what can be done; this should be discussed at the moratorium meeting. Petrik pointed out two items have to be clarified at that meeting and the other is averaging set back rules. Rockvam said we should be trying to finish the ordinances underway by the first of the year; this ties right in but we do not want to keep the agenda going but also try to get this done. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS Council Meeting – 10/16/06 3 a) Construction Update Lakeview Lofts 1. Lakeview Lofts Landscaping 2. Lakeview Lofts Punch List Goman reported they put a purchase order in for the planters and they should be arriving in four to six weeks. He said Frostad purchased them from Norling’s Lake Minnetonka Landscapes. Rockvam inquired about the punch list. Goman said they have completed the addresses and the biggest issue is the drainage off the roof. Rockvam pointed out there are gutters are on the east side of the building and the contractor is discussing cutting them down to run onto the green space. He asked if there are other big items and Goman said he is not aware of any. Beck referred to the Assumption Agreement between Frostad and the HCRRA for the crushed rock walkway. She said the City would be the middle man and an agreement is needed with the City and homeowners association as far as maintaining it and insuring it. Beck said she is in the process of obtaining this. Rockvam asked the status of the arbitration. Seifert said on 11/15 a schedule will be set for December court dates. He said the other issues being worked on are the overlay costs on Sunset Drive, the repair costs along the HCRRA property and the obligation to pay for the overlay adjacent to the Lakeview Lofts property. Seifert stated Adolf sent a letter to Frostad with the initial costs. Rockvam said this is part of the Developer’s Agreement. Seifert said Frostad would pay for this when he receives an invoice that would show costs. b) Construction Update Mist 1. Mist Development Agreement Punch List Present: Brad Ridgeway, Patty St. Pierre, Beth Pfeifer i. memo from Beth Pfeifer, Cornerstone Group Beth stated she responded to a memo from Beck regarding their checklist. Rockvam asked how long before the milling would be done. Goman said they can do it tomorrow if there is good weather. Rockvam said their cost is $2,900 to repair damage on Sunset. Pfeifer said they requested an invoice for the amount and will pay it when it is received. Rockvam asked if we are charging both developments the same. Adolf said the costs were based on the portion of Sunset Drive across the HCRRA property; $5,800 was divided by 2 to determine each cost. Beck referred to item #10 on Pfeifer’s memo regarding the parallel parking along Del Otero. She said the Development Agreement requires parallel parking along Del Otero between Bayview and Shoreline Place Condos driveway and the scenario of public parking is not reflected anywhere. Beck pointed out where some of the developments additional parking requirements were considered does not seem to be the best option now as it did in the earlier stages. She said staff and the engineer are in agreement that placing parking in the original location poses a safety concern. She said Cornerstone has requested to use those public spaces behind Storlie’s building (4032 Shoreline Drive). Beck said this would total 11 stalls, 4 are private parking and 7 are City parking. She asked for a motion to approve the deletion of the original requirement from the Development Agreement for that area because technically they are not in compliance. Goman said he does not recommend placing parking stalls on Council Meeting – 10/16/06 4 the south side of that roadway with four driveways on that side because it is not wide enough and there is a potential for problems. Motion by Reinhardt and seconded by Hughes to direct the City Attorney to revise the Development Agreement for the Mist Lofts to reflect the above agreement. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Mist Punch List 3. Occupancy Certificates Rockvam verified there were three occupancies issued for the south building. Pfeifer pointed out they would have several closings before the next Council meeting and need occupancy certificates. Rockvam said he would like to see the condition of the interior. Pfeifer said the fire and building inspectors have signed off on the south building but they do not have the final sign off on the north building. She stated they are asking for occupancy for four units that are scheduled to close before the Council meeting November 9th and two in the north building are on October 25th. Rockvam asked if the hallways are complete to the four units. Ridgeway said the common areas are complete, the carpet done and the last coat of paint will be done last to take care of any marks on the walls done from furniture when it is moved in. He said carpet is on the hall floors that have occupied units. Hughes asked if there are plans to keep homeowners from going into construction zones. Ridgeway said they would not be in those areas. St. Pierre confirmed there are no dangerous areas; construction would be taking place in the units. Rockvam verified health and safety issues are all addressed. Williamson asked for the attorney to comment on the south building only and if all requirements are satisfactory. Beck stated they have made substantial progress as long as life safety and building issues are satisfactory. Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer that if those situations are accurate there is no further reason to hold up anything on the south b uilding. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam asked the Council if they agreed with the same situation for the north building. Motion by Reinhardt and seconded by Hughes to agree with the same situation for the north building. Hughes said he agreed if the building and fire inspectors have done their final inspection on the site. Williamson asked who the last inspector is to approve. Friesen said it is the building inspector. Rockvam recommended the attorney review the situation for the north building. Hughes amended the motion and seconded by Widmer to have the attorney review and approve that the appropriate procedures have been done for the north building. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Council Meeting – 10/16/06 5 Ridgeway verified this included the occupancy on the October 25th. Goman said it would include the same process they did last Friday. Seifert said special precautions should be taken by JE Dunn so home owners do not stumble on equipment. Ridgeway pointed out they do not want issues with injuries and lack of security. Seifert asked if they set security in place security for equipment, etc. Ridgeway said all doors are lockable. St. Pierre said all equipment is put away at the end of the day and operators are alert of residents in the area. Pfeifer verified the temporary occupancy for the units in the south and north buildings. She pointed out they need a temporary certificate of occupancy (CO) for the buildings and not just for the unit(s). She said they need at least a temporary CO for people to access their units. Rockvam said he was under the impression people could to go to their unit. Pfeifer said they technically need a CO for common areas. Rockvam said we are going to place our trust in the attorney on this. Seifert verified they have occupancy for three units and need an additional CO for the common area. Williamson said there is lack of clarity. Seifert said there is no temporary CO. Rockvam said if we have an issue that is holding this up our staff should call the attorney for clarification. Friesen pointed out the City of Orono does issue a temporary CO and we are saying they cannot do this. She asked what we call it if not a temp. CO. Williamson said if we are allowing the attorney to review all of this, likewise resolve this in the same manner. 4. Tour for Council, Planning Commission and City Staff – October 25th 2:00 p.m. – Noted 5. Approval of Final Plat, Registered Land Survey and CIC (see Resolution below) Pfeifer asked for approval of the final plat. She stated they have written authorization from the planner, attorney and engineer. Rockvam referred to the Development Agreement checklist, Section 3.16 item #7. He said the roof-top equipment is visible from the lake and to pedestrians. He added this does not meet the criteria but the boiler stacks are not visible from the lake. Ridgeway confirmed the fireplace flews are visible. Rockvam said to compare the roof-top at Lakeview Lofts to the Mist Lofts. St. Pierre said they have individual furnaces. Pfeifer said the center of building would have screening around it. Rockvam said this item is not complete, just the boiler stacks. Williamson asked the remedy at this point. Rockvam stated he was just asking them what they think and if the intent of the Development Agreement been met regarding this. Pfeifer said they thought they had addressed all of the concerns with the roof-top and everything was complete. Rockvam asked Pfeifer if she has looked at the roof-top. Pfeifer said she had and the boiler stacks are hidden. Ridgeway said there are fireplace flews and a small satellite dish on the roof. Rockvam said there is a whole series of equipment that detracts from the building. Petrik said this should be brought up at the next meeting with photographs to help resolve this. Council Meeting – 10/16/06 6 Motion by Reinhardt and seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 06-30, authorizing and directing final execution of the Mist Lofts final plat and registered land survey. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Williamson asked how many units have been sold and was told 44. Widmer inquired about the retail in the south building. She was told Welsh Co. has been hired to promote the space but there is nothing currently rented. c) Planning Commission Minutes – 10/11/06 1. Variance Request – Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road i. NAC Memo Present: Graham Neve, Paul Fadell. Neve pointed out at the last Council meeting he had several variance requests. He said he has narrowed it down to one request and that is a street side variance request of 18’ reduced from 12’. He said he has reduced the size of the garage. He was told he needed a variance for the garage and read page 44 from the ordinance pertaining to the averaging site lines. He pointed out the distance from the street of the structure on the property at 2413 Black Lake Road. He referred to item #6 on page 44. Petrik stated the initial variance was required on the house and this was the route to take and Neve can use the averaging for the hardship. He said he reviewed this using the averaging technique on the front and lakeside setback. Rockvam verified a variance is not needed for the deck. Widmer said she thinks a variance is needed from the lakeside no matter what the case. Petrik referred to the ordinance on page 44 that explains the averaging techniques for lakeside and street side. Rockvam said the averaging is in respect from the high water mark and the original intent was if two existing houses were within 50 feet and explained this distance from the lake is the smaller of the two distances. Rockvam verified Petrik was saying Neve does not need a setback from the high water mark. Williamson asked the setback of the garage from the high water mark. Neve said it was 35 feet and the house is 38 feet. Rockvam asked why the garage was not being put back in the house. Neve said that would take out living space; the reason he did not do it in the first place was the design element; he wanted it to blend in with the neighborhood and not look too tall. Hughes verified the 18 foot distance is from the property line but in reality it is only 16 feet because of the problem with the traveled road and the actual property line. Rockvam said he thought the ordinance said if the property abuts a City street you can measure from the center of the City street. Petrik said this is not true. Williamson said the problem with a hardship is original documents indicated a garage within the structure and decisions have been made to change the structure. He said the hardship is created by the property owner. Neve said originally they decided they did not need a garage and it is not illegal to change your mind and things change. He said the Council Meeting – 10/16/06 7 driveway is unsafe in the winter and he wants it to be safe. Williamson again pointed out Neve made decisions along the way to create this situation and this results indirectly from his acts and decisions. Reinhardt asked if this property changes ownership does that change the hardship. Williamson stated this is supposed to be addressing the use of the property in appropriately zoned areas not the person. Reinhardt clarified she knew it was never about the person. Hughes asked if there were other remedies to this i.e. a parking pad to eliminate a safety issue. Rockvam said it depends on the interpretation of averaging in the ordinance and Neve does not need a variance. Hughes said he disagrees; Neve only has a 16 foot distance from the road to his front door and that is not enough distance to park a car. Williamson said we are trying to rectify and improve situations not perpetuate problems. Widmer pointed out it is not unusual for a property owner to move to bigger and better if they out grow their current dwelling. Rockvam asked if the proposed garage is the same elevation as the road. Neve said it is one to one and a half feet below. Rockvam asked what would be under the proposed garage and was told a wall. Hughes asked Neve if he received a copy of Steve Erickson’s letter (4367 Shoreline Drive). Neve said it was read at the Planning Commission meeting. Fadell said even if they had all wheel drive vehicles they would still have to fly up the drive to get out and that is a bigger hazard than a garage. Hughes suggested build up the land for a parking pad. Fadell asked why a variance is needed. Petrik pointed out the averaging technique says no variance is required. It was noted the area unclear is from the lakeside but as it is written now the averaging from two adjacent properties is used to determine the distance. Rockvam said Neve asked for a variance and was told he would have to go back to the Council. He said the discussion about the averaging indicates Neve does not need a variance. He said this point has to be cleared up or challenged. The Council briefly discussed averaging examples and what can eventually happen in the future. Neve said he would blend in the garage for one vehicle and the house level with the road for an easier safer egress and create more parking spaces. Rockvam questioned safely parking cars in front of the garage because there is not enough room to park a car in front of the garage and not be in the street. Mason stated Neve indicated at the Planning Commission he may not be building the garage before selling the house. Reinhardt said that does not matter. Friesen pointed out the variance goes with the property. Williamson said the property is for sale; Neve needs a garage and is really moving away; a garage would make a difference in the selling price and this would be an economic matter. Motion by Reinhardt and seconded by Hughes to approve the 18 foot street side variance request for 2401 Black Lake Road. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted no. Motion declared failed. Council Meeting – 10/16/06 8 Neve asked if he needs a variance or does he not need a variance. Williamson said if the same standards are being applied the past 13 years, yes he does need a variance. Neve asked if we go by the ordinance or not (referring to what he read). Hughes stated to apply the standard the property owner has to be able to park a full size vehicle in front of the garage and off the pavement (19 feet). Friesen referred to page 44 in the ordinance regarding the front yard setback; the minimum is 30 feet; #7 refers to the lakeside and the average of the setbacks of the adjacent structures. Neve asked why the averaging of structures to determine set backs is in the book if it is not going to be used. Reinhardt stated there is room for review of the ordinance standards for Black Lake Road in particular due to the nature of the lots and the location of the traveled road. She added a variance is for unique circumstances and multiple cases exist in the City. Rockvam asked if this meant different setbacks for different areas. Reinhardt said ‘undue hardship’ should be reviewed. Rockvam said in this case the property owner did not meet the undue hardship requirement. Rockvam pointed out the traveled road and platted road is different for Black Lake Road. He stated the City did a study and residents did not want anything done to that road. He noted many improvements have been made by many residents to bring their structures in compliance. Neve said he feels the ordinance is being applied incorrectly and asked if there is recourse. Friesen said there is an appeal process. Neve asked if he sells the property and the new owners did not create hardship can they apply for a variance. Rockvam said they would need a hardship. Reinhardt said the new owner has a right to apply. Williamson pointed out it is a judgment factor within the area and there is no automatic yes or no about it and a hardship cannot be economic. Seifert said anyone would have a difficult time proving hardship with that property. Hughes stated a rule of thumb is you have to be able to park a car safely from the street. Williamson pointed out state law requires adoption of a variance by a 4/5’s vote from the Council. Neve said his property line goes into the street and he would have changed his garage if he had known that would be where the problem is. Hughes said the ordinance book states 30 feet but that is not the reason why he voted no. 2. Lighting Ordinance Rockvam said he thought we had a benchmark for the lighting for the Mist Lofts. Seifert said a person did come out to the City and did a test of the lights at Lakeview Lofts. Rockvam verified that had foot candles on it. He said he was looking for a comparison between the Mist Lofts and Lakeview Lofts. He said this proposal is not as bright and is a minimum standard for safety purposes and not about a residential area. Petrik said there are two parts in the proposed lighting ordinance, one is regulating nuisance lighting and one is for minimum standards for safety. Hughes said he had a question regarding light meters and pointed out Brixius was supposed to check out the lighting in the City. Petrik said no one has a light meter. Hughes said at the Planning Commission he requested a diagram that we could refer to for a comparison i.e. a chart we could relate future projects to. Reinhardt clarified the Council Meeting – 10/16/06 9 recap chart is a recommended change from the average ratios to a minimum to maximum of light intensity. Petrik said he was told it is best to adopt minimum safety standards, maximum to minimum is a practical range people can see for safety; it made sense to include that information. Rockvam asked if the light levels in table C8-1 are the maximums. Petrik said they are the minimums and most requirements establish minimums. Rockvam said most commercial places are lit with bright lights. Petrik said the minimum standards are for safety. Rockvam said there is no mention of requirements for a restaurant, boat yard or marina. Petrik we should require a post construction test to make sure we are getting what we think we are getting. He said a lighting consultant should be brought in to explain these things to the Council. Williamson said we want to move forward from a present situation and a minimum rate level is better than the present circumstance. Rockvam said he would like to see another page that is a bench mark or reference point i.e. lighting on east west Spring Street and what it is, etc. He said Sunset Drive is the worst example. Williamson said he would like to establish a minimum and go forward. He said it is important to incorporate the concept of maximum to minimum and some low light levels can be very effective; it is important to provide safety. Hughes pointed out another issue on page three f. Hours. 2. regarding hours for lighted signs. Rockvam verified the original chart is being deleted. Seifert verified there are only two standards, maximum to minimum. Rockvam asked what that meant. Petrik explained there is not a light range more than .2 foot candle. Hughes again stated we need something we can reference this to in order to understand this and relate to it. Goman referred to a memo dated March 7, 2006 from Michaud Cooley that would answer a lot of the Council’s questions regarding a light standard. He said he would forward it to the Council and Seifert. Petrik said it also provided a photometric of different areas. Rockvam said we are not ready to adopt this proposed lighting ordinance. Seifert pointed out when we did this study we found all measurements were above .2 foot candles. Petrik said the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to provide minimum light for parking lots. Goman said the diagram does not take into affect double-head lights that have been installed. Rockvam noted crime is lower in lit areas. Petrik referred to page three f. Hours 1. & 2. He said the Council can write a menu for options and they can delete items. Hughes stated this section is not business friendly to ask business to turn their lights off at a certain time of night. Rockvam said the Council should have another workshop. Petrik pointed out only the City of Bloomington has a minimum light standard and most cities do not feel it is an issue. Rockvam said we are looking for something that would apply to a new project. Williamson added it would save us a lot of time to have standards in place. Seifert pointed out we should consider visibility from the lake. Hughes stated he likes the definitions in the ordinance. 3. Escrow & Fees Ordinance Petrik said this is not to discourage homeowners; their fee is a one time charge to review applications to make sure they are complete; the escrow fee pays for consultant staff and Council Meeting – 10/16/06 10 the applicant understands they are responsible for costs incurred and we can bill the applicant for additional funds. Rockvam asked if Norling’s Lake Minnetonka Landscapes (4332 Shoreline Drive) preliminary plat is an example. Petrik said that application was for a subdivision and a preliminary plat is for large projects. Rockvam said someone has to keep track of these funds for interest. Hughes asked Friesen to check Banyon (fund accounting software) to see if this is a feature that could be programmed in. Friesen said this is not hard to do with a spread sheet with large projects. Hughes referred to a variance for a residential district and asked if the costs go over $250, if there was an alternate process or a way to collect our fees. Petrik said we have to make sure the initial fee is enough. Hughes verified the cost for the variance on the agenda tonight was more than the variance fee. Beck pointed out it is more difficult to collect money than to get it up front. Petrik said the project at 2406 Black Lake Road is an example of excess staff costs. He added the City is challenging because of the number of non conforming lots. Rockvam said it is easier to tell people to redesign their projects to conform. Friesen asked what other cities do. Beck is going to check on the requirements. Rockvam asked what the Planning Commission recommendation is for this proposed ordinance. Petrik said they recommended approval with changes. He pointed out this is to be used as an all purpose cover page for all applications applicable to put people on notice they are liable for expenses. Rockvam said the residential fee is not a realistic fee. Hughes asked the history of the property that had a garage across the street from 2413 Black Lake Road. He was told the garage was not a conforming structure because it was not the primary structure on the lot; the lot was sold and a house was built on it. Reinhardt said if we adopt something like this we have to be careful. Seifert said land is worth more today than before and plans are going to be intensive and costs will be incurred to review applications. He thought the fees seem to be low. Petrik agreed and suggested maybe $500 as a starting point for a variance for residential giving the property at 2463 Black Lake Road as an example. Rockvam said when anyone comes in for a land use request they should have a survey with easements on the survey. Williamson asked how we became aware of the easement on the property at 2406 Black Lake Road. Goman said he knew it was there and the property owner knew it was there. Seifert pointed out there were numerous changes with her plans with every meeting. Hughes agreed we need to revisit costs again. Widmer asked the amount for escrow on a variance and if the cost was per application or per variance. Petrik said he recommends to charge per variance. Williamson pointed out the first Council meeting every year we establish fees for the year. He asked if we adopt this can we change them at the first of every year. Beck said the ordinance would have to be amended. Rockvam said we should put the fees in a fee schedule and reference it in the ordinance. Rockvam said we are not ready to adopt this and it should go back to a work session. He asked the Council what they want to do with the two proposed ordinances. They were in agreement to hold a workshop. Hughes suggested staff work on dollar figures to see if they are realistic. Rockvam noted we have never done accounting on projects. Council Meeting – 10/16/06 11 6. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS a) 06-30 Authorizing and Directing Final Execution of Mist Lofts Final Plat and Registered Land Survey – approved earlier in the meeting. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes – 10/11/06 Reinhardt asked what was in the letter from WeCan. Rockvam said it was a sleep out for the homeless to raise funds. Hughes referred to Lord Fletcher’s Restaurant abatement and asked why it did not come before the Board of Review. Rockvam said because they filed an abatement and this should give them a credit for next year not this year. He added if they missed the hearing it should be their problem; the loss to the City is $6,600 in this years collected taxes. Rockvam asked if the sump pump complaint is civil or criminal. Beck will check on this. b) Council – Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Hughes pointed out our ordinance does not have any language that deals with run off on construction properties that go into the lake i.e. 2406 Black Lake Road project. He stated we need something to enforce compliance. Goman said he contacted the Watershed; they did an inspection and wrote a letter. He said we sent a letter to the property owner and the developer. Rockvam asked who is going to clean out the lagoon when the project is completed. Goman said the City is going to. Rockvam asked if the silt fence is back up. Seifert said to red tag the project if they are not responding to City requests. Hughes said the driveway for the above property is going in next spring which means more run off and something needs to be done. Goman said we can put hay bales around our catch basin. Hughes stated in the future we should address the number of false alarm calls when an alarm company is working on the alarms and there is no charge for the calls. Goman said the City of Orono charges after three calls and the charge is progressive. Reinhardt said a resident asked her the history of dog licensing. She said the ordinance only allows two dogs. Reinhardt referred to a training session she recently attended. She said the state legislature made changes on non conforming structures and now allows removal of a non conforming structure with the rebuilding and enhancing of the structure. Williamson said this was done with a disaster area in mind and now it applies to everybody. The planner was requested to report on that new change. Council Meeting – 10/16/06 12 Widmer verified a City wide trash pick up flyer would be included in the water bill. c) Engineer 1. Sunset Drive Improvement Project i. Engineering Fees Adolf said the street lighting fee is based on the number of lights each party is responsible for, Lakeview Lofts, Mist Lofts and City of Spring Park. He pointed out page two of his memo lists the percentage of each party’s responsibility for 26 street lights. This includes lights on Sunset, Spring Street, Shoreline, Bayview Place and Del Otero. Rockvam pointed out the City cost is $2,336 and that was for design, planning and Michaud Cooley, the electrical engineer. Hughes asked if this included the ‘as built’ drawing and was told no. Adolf pointed out the second portion are the fees for Sunset Drive. He added this memo is a recap and most of the fees have been paid. Hughes asked if the costs were billed back to the developments or taken out of escrow accounts. Seifert said the escrow fund does not pay for physical construction work but a letter of credit is when they are obligated to get what is listed completed. Adolf said this has all been invoiced to the City. Rockvam asked what fund we are taking the money from. Friesen said it was coming from the General fund for Sunset Drive improvements. Rockvam pointed out we have never budgeted for this. He verified we bill a percentage of these costs to the projects and it goes back into the general fund. Adolf said the intent was to establish a procedure to allocate for these expenses. Rockvam asked the total dollar amount of the City’s costs. Adolf said the street lighting cost is $2,336 and Sunset Drive improvements are $22,497. Adolf said an alternative method of determining cost of the storm sewer is based on the length of the curb frontage. Hughes asked if Storlie has any costs for this and was told no. Rockvam asked the cost with the second method and was told it would be $17,410. Hughes noted we should collect before the end of the year before the letter of credit expires. Adolf said this is in the developer’s agreement and the letter of credit. Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to approve the alternate #2 method of costs for the storm sewer facilities and have the attorney bill the appropriate developers their amount. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam noted we’ve expended $19,000 out of the budget and this is over and above for the year. Williamson stated a motion was passed that it would be extracted from the public improvement fund. Adolf responded to Hughes question regarding erosion control. He said the new stormwater management ordinance does provide for that and it is mandated by the Pollution Control Agency. He added he will follow up on this. Williamson wanted to know who reviews and enforces this and what kind of penalty is applied. d) Utility Superintendent Council Meeting – 10/16/06 13 Goman made reference to Wilkes Park. He said he met with a rep from E F Anderson and the condition of the play structures was reviewed and all are in good shape. He said this does not include the merry go round and the swings; they are nonconforming, grandfathered for now and not structurally failing. Goman said he would have a report with recommendations. He said there is no immediate need that anything is going to fall apart; the sign is removed and will be replaced; the timber wall is the immediate hazard. Williamson said it appears it has not been maintained and recommendations should include maintenance impact advice. Goman said if it needs repair it would be replaced with composite materials. e) Administrator 1. Upcoming meetings i. Moratorium Workshop – October 30th 7:00 p.m. ii. Land Use Issues for Cities, St. Paul, Nov. 1st 1-5 p.m. (Sarah and Wendy) Note tour of Mist 10/25 – 2:00 p.m. - meet at the south building commercial space; Planning Commission is also included. iii MCWD briefing meeting – Nov. 2, 7:30-9 a.m., Gillespie Center Call the MCWD if you want to attend. iv. City Council, November 9 (date change due to election) v. Retirement Party for Sharon, November 16th, 4-6 p.m., City Hall 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Hughes asked if #12, for NAC could be broken out. Friesen will check on this. Motion by Hughes and seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for October 16, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) HCRRA permit – Sunset Drive basin Beck stated the delay was because her comments triggered a review process and a clearer format. b) Summary of closed session – performance evaluation – Sharon Corl c) Separation Agreement for Sharon Corl Motion by Hughes and seconded by Widm er to approve the separation agreement for Sharon Corl. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide – Status Report Lakeview Lofts b) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide – Status Report Mist Lofts c) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide – Status Report Island Harbor d) Approval of extension of Recycling Contract with Waste Management Widmer asked if the rates are increasing. Lewin said requests for proposals were sent and she would be attending a meeting tomorrow. Council Meeting – 10/16/06 14 Motion by Hughes and seconded by Williamson to approve the temporary extension of the current recycling contract. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. e) Acceptance of resignation from Planning Commission – Doug Sippel Motion by Hughes and seconded by Widmer to accept Planning Commissioner Doug Sippel’s resignation. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam asked if a plaque would be ordered. Hughes said only if they complete a term, otherwise they received a letter of recognition. He suggested the opening for a Planning Commissioner go into the Newsletter. Reinhardt said we should invite previous applications along with new solicitations. Williamson recommended announcing it in the local paper. f) Fire Dept. Monthly Report and September Calls for City of Spring Park g) LMCD memo re: Appointment of 2007 Board Members Hughes expressed disappointment with the commitment of the City representative. 11. MISCELLANEOUS – None 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 11:08 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK SARAH FRIESEN ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER