Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/07/19 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular 7TY OFFICIAL MINUTES SCT.ILOL/°/FS CITY COUNCIL MEETING RK ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA July 19, 2004 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7.30 pm Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Sally Velick Staff present: City Assessor(Mr. Stepnick), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Clerk (Ms. Reichert), City Engineer(Ms. Hagen), City Manager(Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Engineer Development Manager(Mr. Olson), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin) and Supenntendent of Utilities (Mr. Anderson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of June 21, 2004 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. Study Session Minutes of June 21, 2004 Councilmember Velick noted on Page 3, Communications regarding Elliot School, she had asked if the School Board was planning to do anything with the building and the response she got was that they were looking for other renters. However, her intent was not what they were going to do to rent it out, but if they were going to paint and fix it up a little. The minutes were approved as corrected. 3c. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2004 Councilmember Sanger noted that she was present The minutes were approved as corrected. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion Consent items are acted upon by one motion If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience,that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion (Alternatively Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar) Council Meeting Minutes -2- July 19, 2004 4a. Motion to approve Ordinance No. 2275-04 amending St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) to eliminate stand alone motor fuel stations as a conditional use in the General Industrial District, clarifying the temporary structure ordinance, clanfying restaurant conditions in the Office District, and requiring tree protection standards during construction activities; approve second reading, summary ordinance and authonze publication. Case Nos. 04-22-ZA 4b. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-085 imposing a civil penalty of$1000 on Boykin Management Co, Inc., DBA Holiday Inn Mpls West, 9970 Wayzata Blvd, St. Louis Park, for liquor license violation as recommended by the City Manager. 4c. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate BCG Construction as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $29,686.60 for Alley Improvement Project-7600 and 7700 Block Edgebrook Drive, Project No. 03-15 4d. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of$318,707.39 for West 36th Street Water Improvements—City Project No. 04-14 4e. Motion to designate Bituminous Roadways, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and to authorize execution of a contract for the reclaiming and repaving of the George Haun trail in Bass Lake Park in an amount not to exceed$75,339.00. 4f. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute an Encroachment Agreement with Patrick Shea, 2646 Joppa Avenue South, for use of City nght-of- way for placement of a retaining wall. 4g. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-086 accepting work on 2003 random sidewalk replacement in the amount of$47,863.40 4h. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-087 accepting work on 2003 sidewalk and trail constriction in the amount of$19,229.27 4i. Planning Commission Minutes of June 2, 2004 4j. Motion directing staff to pursue right-of-way acquisition associated with Trunk Highway 100 Noise Wall Construction Project, Project No. 2005-01 4k. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-088 for the issuance of multifamily housing revenue refunding bonds in an amount not to exceed$14,585,000 under MN Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended I 41. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-089 authorizing the installation of"No Parking" restrictions on the north side of 26th Street for the 100 feet west of 25 'h Street. It was moved by Councilmember Velack, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -3- July 19, 2004 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to consider granting an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license to CSM Lodging Services, Inc., DBA Holiday Inn Minneapolis West at 9970 Wayzata Blvd, St. Louis Park MN Ms. Reichert clanfied that the report stated that a transfer of management operations would occur, but there was technically no such thing as a transfer in liquor licenses This was an entirely new license, a new owner of the building, and a new management company that would be taking over the license. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Donndia Cianci, representing CSM Lodging, stated that they were a new company, and had several companies across the United States and hotels in the City, and were very much into the TIPS training and wanted to work very closely with the Police Department regarding the liquor license Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Santa question if this was the third application for a liquor license in a year. Ms. Reichert responded for this location, this was the first sale of this establishment, this year. Boykin Management purchased it and applied for a liquor license about a year ago. Prior to that it was probably operated for two or three years under the same company Councilmember Santa thanked Ms Reichert for the clarification. It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license effective Aug 2, 2004. The motion passed 7-0 6b. Public Hearing on Alley Improvement Project and Assessment Hearing: Alley Construction—4200 block of Ottawa Avenue, Project No. 04-16 Resolution No.'s 04-082 and 04-083 Mr Anderson reported in October 2003 the City received a petition from five homes located in the 4200 block of Ottawa Avenue They requested that an alley be constructed so they could build garages behind their homes. Those five homes currently have no garages and the alley they would like to have constructed would run behind their homes starting at 42nd Street heading South to 4233 on the East side of Ottawa Avenue. They alley that was proposed to be constructed would be concrete and constructed on City property because there was no existing right-of-way. The City owned all of the property to the East of the homes and the alley would be constructed in a 14 foot wide right-of-way. The alley to be constructed was 390 feet long and would be made of six inches of concrete. The Council approved their petition and ordered staff to study the feasibility of the project. Over winter staff prepared plans for this project and in the spring held a neighborhood Council Meeting Minutes -4- July 19, 2004 meeting to discuss the plans for the project and the assessment process with those homeowners. Affected residents were invited to the meeting as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Staff received comments from those in favor and opposed. A study session was held for the Council to provide an overview of the project and answer questions. Neighbors were invited to that as well. On June 21st at the Council Meeting, the Council approved the City Engineers report and ordered the public hearing. This project is estimated to cost$68,000 which would be assessed to the abutting properties. The assessment would follow the City's policy on alley assessment that states that 100% of the costs would be assessed to the abutting property owners. The assessment is broken into indirect and direct benefit. 30% of the assessment is for indirect and is assessed to all abutting property owners. 70% is considered for direct benefit and would be assessed to those properties that would receive access so they could construct garages. There are five homes that would receive the direct benefit. It would be a 20-year assessment at 6.6%. The owners had an option to pay early and pay before the November 15th deadline when the assessment role was completed. Because half of the abutting property is a city property, practice in previous construction projects was for the City to pay 50% of the cost, thus $34,000 would come from the City's public improvement revolving fund. The other 50% will be assessed to the owners on the West side of the alley. Mayor Jacobs noted that petitions had been received from Manlyn Lingwall, Todd and Patricia Mickelson and Phyllis and John Deinema and would be made a part of the record. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. John Deinema,4201 Ottawa, stated that he was opposed to the construction of the alley because it wouldn't do him any good and he thought it was a waste of tax payer money. These people bought their homes knowing that they didn't have a garage. It was possible for them to make a curb cut and put a driveway between their houses and if there wasn't enough room, they could share a driveway, as many places do, and build a garage on their own property without involving the City and people who had no need for the alley. They already had garages and dnveways. He noted there was an on-going expense over the $34,000 to maintain and plow the alley and the City was taking that on. He thought it was a waste of money and asked if the City Attorney had looked at this because they were doing pnvate work with public money? Mr. Scott replied that this would be a public street and open to the public, even though it was an alley versus a public street, it still fell into the category of a public street and there was no problem with the City doing this type of improvement. Mr. Deinema asked if the City had a requirement for these people to build a garage. Mayor Jacobs replied he didn't believe there was a requirement. Mr. Harmening replied that there was no code requirement dictating that they had to have a garage. Mr. Deinema asked if they didn't build an alley, could they drive their car on the grass in back or was there a requirement to be cement, black top or gravel access to their property from the alley. Council Meeting Minutes -5- July 19, 2004 Mr. Harmening replied that was correct. A driveway and parking area should be hard surface and should be concrete or bituminous. Mr. Deinema asked for clarification that there was no requirement for a garage. Mr. Harmening replied that was correct. Mr. Deinema wondered how that was going to increase his property value because a garage was not required to be built. He understood that they were giving them off-street parking, but there was no garage involved. He asked if there was a cost involved with moving the telephone poles, or would the alley be constructed on the East of the telephone poles in the back. Mr. Olsen replied if the poles were located within the right-of-way and were not obstructing the alley, they would probably stay in place. Otherwise, the poles could be moved. Mr. Deinema asked if that was part of the $68,000. Mr Olsen responded that generally the poles are moved at the expense of the company who owned the poles. There were contingencies built into the project to cover unforeseen things such as that. Mr. Deinema stated that he was inquiring about that because he wondered where the alley would be and how close it would abut to his property. Mr. Olsen replied that the right-of-way for a typical alley was fourteen feet wide. It would be constructed across the City property but would abut directly to his property line. There would be a two foot buffer from his property line to the edge of the concrete surface. Mr. Deinema asked if the alley could be staked out so they knew where it would be? He had rocks as a border in the back and wondered if he would have to move those. Mr. Olsen responded that they would stake it and would work with owners on issues such as moving rocks or plantings and things like that. Mr. Deinema asked what provision the City would make to ensure that his driveway would not be used by people going to use the alley There would be 10-15 feet between the alley entrance and the entrance to his driveway he could see someone taking a short cut going into his driveway and across the grass, then down the alley. They have trucks going in the alley constantly, such as the cable company who go into their driveway and across the grass. He had sprinklers in the back and they went across that, then down to get at the utility poles in the back. Mayor Jacobs suggested if he had to move the rocks, that could be a place for them. Mr Harmening responded that there wouldn't be anything the City could do on private property to remedy that kind of a situation. Having this type of driveway access was not that unusual in the community. They could find garages gaining access off of the side street on corner lots and he hadn't received many calls from people expressing problems Council Meeting Minutes -6- July 19, 2004 with that kind of cut-through. He didn't believe there was anything special that could be done, unless there was a grade change that might discourage that. Ms. Hagen indicated that they could look at it. She,assumed that if it were utility trucks trying to access the power poles or something behind, they were using the driveway because of the curb cut so that they didn't have to jump the curb. Hopefully with the alley, they wouldn't be doing that, but they could look at possibly providing bushes as a buffer. Mayor Jacobs stated it would be worthwhile to check. It would be a concern to have utility trucks going through your back yard. Mr. Deinema asked if there would be another heanng regarding the assessment? Mayor Jacobs replied yes. Mr. Hannening clarified that there would be two hearings, one on the project relating to the design, and the second hearing related to the financial and assessment part of the project. Michelle Gnep, 4233 Ottawa, stated she had already gotten estimates on a garage and was looking forward to building and having a garage. If they didn't have an alley and had a shared driveway, they had a drop on the side of their house and to come in from the street and have a driveway, there would be a gigantic drop. The benefit was going to be to everybody and would increase property values immensely. They had three teenagers in their family and had three cars, soon to be four, that were all parked on the street. If they could get a two-car garage with parking in the back, they would be off the street. This would help with snow plowing and safety issues with children in the street. She was very much in favor of this and it was a definitely needed in their life. Patty Mickelson, 4205 Ottawa, indicated that she wag opposed to the alley for many of the same reasons as John and Phyllis (Deinema) at 4201. They felt there would be a 100% increase in traffic behind their back yard (now it was 'an open lot) which came along with dust, mud and noise. Now it was a peaceful, open lot,and she could sit on her deck, look out her back yard and see the open lot. Many of them have used the lot for their children to ride bikes and play games. A question was if there would be snow removal and maintenance because it would be a dead-end? That lead her to believe that people would try to go in the alley at the same time as someone exiting the alley. Who would get the right-of-way because it wasn't a through alley? Were people going to start driving on her side of the property line, off the black top and ruin her property? The telephone poles were an issue because the telephone pole was right in her back yard. She would like clarification on who was responsible for the pole and who would pay for relocation. Mr. Olsen responded that typically poles were placed right on property lines, so with the two foot buffer of green space between the alley, generally those poles would be left in place and would be adjacent to the alley at those locations. Ms. Mickelson stated a concern with drainage issues. They had lived in their home for 17 years and had no water damage in the basement. Now they would be redirecting the drainage when the alley was constructed and she was fearful there might be some water. Residents at the other end didn't have to pay because they had a private drive, yet they would receive an indirect benefit because these people were supposedly going to build garages, yet they had a pnvate drive and were not paying any of the cost. At the South Council Meeting Minutes -7- July 19, 2004 end of Ottawa there were three or four homes that paid the City years ago to put in a pnvate dnve and they bought the land from the City. That was how they made an entrance behind their homes. This alley would only go part way down and not connect to the pnvate dnve and they wouldn't have to pay. Why did they have to pay for something that they didn't want? She was totally opposed because she was not going to receive any benefit, she was only going to receive an ugly alley out her back yard. One of the home owners that signed the petition was no longer living there, she didn't know if that had been brought to anyone's attention and asked how that affected this? This would invite vandalism behind their homes. There would be children playing in the alley with the possibility of children getting hit or run over. She was concerned about bikes or other items being stolen out of people's garages Mr. Demema brought up a good point that those residents bought their homes knowing that they did not have a garage, therefore they paid a lesser pnce for their homes, as they paid for theirs with a garage. They were being penalized after all of those years of being a homeowner for having a garage and being at the end of the area where the alley would go through. Do these homeowners that want the alley have a deadline of when they are supposed to have a garage built? They were saying no. This alley could potentially go through and one out of these five people build a garage In the end they could be paying for one person to have a garage. They were being given a deadline to pay for this project by November and they don't want to pay for this, but they don't have to have a deadline to build a garage. Russell Clarke, 4229 Ottawa, indicated he was in favor of this. Yes, he did know when he bought his home that there wasn't a garage, but he had talked with some other residents and they had expressed the concern of building a garage. Ms Gnep, he and the two neighbors next to him definitely wanted to build garages and had talked about it over the years. There would be a benefit because of safety issues. Now, with the kids in the area, they ran into the street and rode bikes and having the cars off of the street would increase the view for people dnving down the street. Adding the alley would be a benefit He didn't believe kids would play in the alley, but believed it would increase the safety in front of the house. He also had a steep incline in the back of his home and it would be dangerous even with a driveway to dnve back into the garage and would pose more of a safety issue if a child or pet ran out, there would be no way to stop if they hit ice, they would slide down the hill. He was in favor of the alley being installed behind the houses. Manlyn Lingwall, 4211 Ottawa, indicated she was totally against this. She agreed with her other neighbors that it was a safety issue and financial issue. She thought it would be a bad thing to have an alley because of the safety and the money. They had always had an open field She had lived there since 1986, that was one of the reasons she moved there with a small child who played in that field. He was safe, all of the neighborhood kids played back there. The people that were for the alley, had children who play in the field, she had seen them riding their bikes. There are a lot of stray animals in the neighborhood, they had been lost or stolen, what happens when they have an alley? Children would be in an alley, it was a guarantee. Something bad would happen, there would be a child stolen or a bad accident or a child would get killed. She was totally against this, for all of the reasons as the previous speakers and her own. Christine Lehman, 4225 Ottawa, stated she was in favor of the alley and believed it would be a great improvement. The big open area is owned by the City of St. Louis Park and there is a lot of dumping. There would still be a big area, the alley would only take up 14 feet. She felt it would be safer if the kids played in the alley than in the street in front of • Council Meeting Minutes ' • -8" July 19, 2004 their homes which was where the kids were playing now. She thought it would be a big improvement and would improve property values and would be nice to have access to their back yards. Most of them were up high and their back yards were down low. Mark Griep,4233 Ottawa, commented that this would move up single family homes for the city which was one thing they were running low on space in their neighborhood. Having access to the back for all of the other reasons that previous speakers gave would allow them to build a garage. They had money set aside to build a garage and didn't know if other people did, but they would for sure build a garage if the alley was constructed. It would provide them with more space and allow them to stay in the neighborhood and also provide more safety in the front. He didn't think it would affect kids playing in the back, there would still be plenty of space, there was 41 acres and the alley would only take up a little space. Ms. Lingwall noted that a home two houses south of hers, had built a dnveway out of black top that went all the way to the property line and he drove his cars down there. When people said they had steep inclines, so did he and he managed to do it all the time. It wasn't a steep incline that would be dangerous because he had the same setup. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing Councilmember Sanger asked staff about the properties at the end of the block with the private drive. Mr. Olsen replied that the homes were located off of the cul-de-sac with a private drive to access the first two and possibly the third home. He believed the property owners built that years ago. Because the alley was not abutting those properties, it didn't serve any benefit to those properties following the alley assessment policy. Councilmember Basill indicated when Ms. Mickelson spoke she talked about drainage and one-way snow plowing and asked staff to address those issues. There had been a lot of talk from the speakers about the design and asked staff to also address the process that would happen with the neighbors. Mr. Olsen replied that they knew about drainage concerns and propagating drainage across the alley. The alley was being constructed in a fashion where it would not obstruct drainage from those properties. The flow of drainage would be from the back of the yards toward the center of the city property. Water would leave their property, enter the alley, run down the alley to the low point and spill off into the vacant property which streamlined to enter a culvert at 42na Street. Regarding design considerations, it was discussed at the public meeting in April When they move forward on the project and construction, there would be an open house prior to construction where they would stake out the alley and show where trees may be removed or any impact that may occur to properties and they would work with the homeowners at that time. Councilmember Basill asked how they would be notified of that process? Mr. Olsen replied they would send a mailing and hold another meeting prior to construction. Councilmember Basill clarified that the land behind would not become the individuals private driveway, it would be City owned. There was a question earlier if the City Council Meeting Minutes -9- July 19, 2004 Attorney had looked at this, they were not giving away the property, they were putting an alley there and assessing the cost, but the City still owned that land. If the project went through, he hoped that the 62% of those in favor of this alley would be good stewards and would make an effort to build garages. It had been brought up if they could be required to build a garage, but they couldn't require that. He hoped if they went through a project like this and did this based on the policy, that the people who wanted it would build garages and he encourage that. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to adopt Resolution No. 04-082 ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the 4200 block of Ottawa Avenue, Project No. 04-16, approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of bids. The motion passed 7-0. Mr. Olsen indicated that notice was sent to all of the abutting property owners about this public hearing. In that notice it explained the assessment process and each individual property owners cost for this assessment The assessment would be for$34,000, half the cost of the alley, to those eight property owners abutting the project. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. John Deinema, 4201 Ottawa, stated that he watched the previous Council meeting where they had discussed the "slippery slope" of going 70/30 or 80/20, but he didn't feel he would get much benefit out of this alley. He would have to tear down his garage and turn it a different angle One of the Councilmembers said that maybe in the future these people would decide to connect to the alley later on If that were the case, he would have to build two garages and he only had fourteen feet between his garage and the property line and couldn't possibly put another garage in, so he wouldn't be able to connect to the alley. There were people at the South end who had their own garages and own alley, similar to him, he had his own garage and own driveway, they were not being assessed and part of this 30% was because he was going to get an increase in his property value. He would hate to have them get an increase in property values without having to contribute as well. He thought there should be some mitigation in the 70/30 and consideration of those at the far end of the alley that had their own driveways and garages. They would get an increase in dirt, dust, noise a 100% increase in traffic that they didn't presently have and they were supposed to pay 30% of the project. Mayor Jacobs clarified that this would be a paved alley and not dirt? Mr. Olsen replied that was correct. Patty Mickelson, 4205 Ottawa, asked how they determined a November date for the payment if it hadn't been officially approved. Mr. Stepnick replied that the county collects the special assessment and it was their procedure to take all early payments prior to November 30`h, otherwise they would go on the 20-year program and pay the special assessments with the property taxes. They needed a cut off so when they certified all of the special assessment projects, they could Council Meeting Minutes -10- July 19, 2004 do,it in time to make sure that the first payment on May 15th could be a special assessment. There needed to be a cutoff to process it through Hennepin County. Mayor Jacobs asked if they had to pay the whole special assessment by November 30`h? Mr Stepmck replied that the advantage to paying prior to November 30`h was that the 6.65 interest would not be incurred. Some people elected to do that and others went with the 20-year program. If it was assessed and the special assessment went toward the taxes, if you sell a property, it would be paid out of the proceeds of the sale. Ms. Mickelson asked if they chose to do the payment program and then decided to pay it all off, could they do that? Mr. Stepnick replied that would be a third option. If it is specially assessed and certified to the County and then they later elected in future years to pay off the balance, they could do that at any time, but it needed to be the entire balance. Marilyn Lingwall, 4211 Ottawa, asked what benefit it did for those opposed? They shouldn't have to pay, they didn't want the alley and it didn't benefit them at all or do anything for their properties. All they had was an ugly, unsafe alley that benefited the rest of the people on the block and not their three families. She couldn't afford additional property taxes. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Santa asked for a point of clarification if this project had not gone out for bid? Mr. Olsen replied that was correct. Councilmember Santa asked if the sum they were asking for was an estimate that could be a little bit higher or lower? Mr. Olsen replied that was correct, but they could not assess any higher than $68,000. If they received a bid over that, the Council would have to consider how to make up the difference. Typically, many of these projects fall under the Engineers estimates. Councilmember Santa clarified that $68,000 for the project was the maximum. Ms. Hagen indicated if the project costs came in less, the dollar amounts would go down as well. It was based on the actual cost at the end of the project. Councilmember Finkelstein stated the last time they discussed this issue they talked about not getting on that "slippery slope." He drove out and visited the property, but was not aware of the fact that there was a private cul-de-sac with a private driveway and those people didn't seem to be getting a benefit either, which was a little troubling. They had talked about not departing from the 70%/30% direct/indirect benefit and he wondered if the Council should be revisiting that issue. Councilmember Basill thought when he looked at the area and was out there, there was no question that if he lived in those three homes he wouldn't want it and if he lived in the other five, he would want this. It was very clear that where you lived would be where Council Meeting Minutes -11- July 19, 2004 you would end up having a decision on this. What he struggled with the most was not whether they should do it, he thought they needed to do it. They had a shortage of move- up housing and needed garages in Minnesota. They wanted to provide people a way to have garages in St. Louis Park and not leave and go out to Eden Prairie or other areas, they wanted people to stay there and had a great need for move-up single family homes. He was completely supportive of this project from day one. The issue that he struggled with all along was the assessment At first they looked at it and realized City property was abutting it and believed the City should pay a share because they owned the property. Next there was the issue of what the appropriate assessment was. The policy says 70/30, but this was a unique situation They asked staff to put together a chart showing 70/30, 75/25, 80/20 or 90/10, they looked at that and could possibly discuss it further. He was supportive of this project, they needed to approve it and move forward. The only question he wrestled with was if they should change from their policy. Councilmember Sanger felt that every time they deal with these issues, at the end of the day even people who didn't want to build a new garage on a new alley did benefit because it benefited the property values in the whole area. At some point in the future they may decide to revisit this policy, but they had a policy now and she didn't see anything unique about this block compared to any other blocks where they had built alleys and the same issues arose where people felt they weren't being benefited to the same degree. She thought they were benefited in a different way by the improvements to the houses around them and that raised the values for the whole neighborhood. People who already had alleys paid for them one way or another, either because there was an assessment for them or reflected in the higher price they paid for their homes. She was in support of going forward with the alley assessment according to the current policy. They had already discussed this at quite some length and it was time to move on. Councilmember Velick agreed and could use an example in Ward 4 where they had open land and were going to construct something in the open land and what a benefit it would be because now, with open land,just like this open land, it had a lot of refuse and people were dumping. It would be a benefit because they would not have that dirt and dumping anymore. Councilmember Basill asked for clarification if that was an alley project9 Councilmember Velick replied it was not an alley project, but she was using open land in general as being a place for junk and dumping. Councilmember Basill stated that this was the part he struggled with the most because he had gone out and looked at different areas, the one thing that made this slightly different was that most of the time they were dealing with a dirt alley. In this case the three homeowners, people weren't already driving behind the house and having dust blown up as they sat on their deck. He completely agreed with Councilmember Sanger that there was an indirect benefit to the values of their property and that others who have had alleys had paid. There was also an indirect benefit by getting cars off of the street. Whether they wanted to think that was a benefit or not, it was a benefit because the streets were plowed better, it was safer, the homes stood out more, when visitors came they had a place to park that was convenient, so there was an indirect benefit. The indirect benefit that these people would not get that he saw on 95% of the other alley projects was that they were not going to get the dust eliminated that they saw in most of the alley projects because right now there was no dust because it was a grassy area. • g ur,'',' ' '' Edi., ; ,,� h �inn. is Council Meeting Minutes , '-12'- ' , July 19, 2004 Councilmember Santa agreed with Councilmember Sanger that she didn't find a compelling enough reason to waiver from the previous policy, although she thought they might want to address it at some point in the future. She hoped that Mr. Deinema found that the alley would get people out of his driveway and using the alley, and that would be an indirect value for him. She believed there was an indirect benefit that was consistent enough with previous practice that she wished to go forward with the 70/30. Mayor Jacobs also shared Councilmember Sanger's view on this. As he was reading this, he felt the voice of an old friend whispering in his ear, Len Thiel who was the Mayor of St. Louis Park in the 1960's. They had these discussions and many times this was a bigger deal in the 1960's because they were paving streets and building storm sewers and he asked him about where the indirect/direct benefit notion come from and he said that it developed over the course of many years with a lot of trial and error and every situation was different. The public heanngs they used to have were dreadfully long and had to do with storm sewers because the guy at the top of the hill never wanted to have to pay for the storm sewer for the guy at the bottom of the hill and could see no benefit at all for storm sewers and the kinds of things that would benefit the whole community, yet there was an indirect benefit to them. He saw some unique circumstances that there was not an existing alley that people were already dnving on that would be cleaned up, so it was different to that extent. But was it different enough to warrant a change from a time honored policy, he didn't think so. They had to be careful about granting a sort of variance for special assessments because at the end of the day, nobody walks away happy and he thought that was a bad result. He had sympathy for the people opposed to this,but there was enough indirect benefit to them because of cars off the street and ease of plowing snow. It was a close call, but there was no compelling reason to change the way they had done these over the course of 50 years. It was not easy for them. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with Mayor Jacobs and thought it made sense that they didn't want to get into a situation where every time they did a special assessment it almost became like a variance hearing. He would support the majority position, but would like to bring this back to study session within the next year, to review what assumptions they were using in the 70/30 split and whether that made sense in this day. Mayor Jacobs agreed that it would be worthwhile to look at that. Councilmember Basill thought that Councilmember Finkelstein's point was valid. They should learn from this and it probably merited bringing to study session the policy to ask if 10% of the indirect value was getting cars of the street or 10% that there was not going to be dust from the alley or 10% the access, because in a case like this they would not be making an arbitrary decision. They should bring it back for a study session. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa to adopt Resolution No. 04-083 establishing the assessment for Project No. 04-16, construction of alley for 4200 block of Ottawa Ave. The motion passed 7-0. Mayor Jacobs indicated they would be in touch with the neighborhood when they were ready to begin construction. Council Meeting Minutes -13- July 19, 2004 Mr. Olsen replied that they would be doing bids in July/August and construction in September/October and there would be more discussion with the neighborhood. 7. Requests,Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances,Motions 8a. Water Feasibility Report: Water Treatment Plant Filter Rehabilitation Project—Project No. 20041300 Resolution No. 04-084 Mr. Anderson indicated that they were referring to feasibility report for water treatment plant#10. They had put in the CIP, the rehabilitation for the water treatment plants are getting old and needed major work. Part of the work was changing the filter media which was a process of cleaning the water and taking the iron and manganese out of the water. During that process that had been in the CIP for a few years, there have recently been some elevated levels of radium which added another piece to this project for radium removal. They had incorporated the radium removal in with the water treatment plant rehab. The additional work done for that would reduce the radium levels and also reduce the iron and manganese levels in the water. This project was for one treatment plant, they would be before the Council again to do the other treatment plants. There were six treatment plants, four were affected by radium, so there would be radium removal in four of the six plants. All six plants would be rehabbed in the near future. This was for water treatment plant#10. Councilmember Sanger felt it was important for the viewers at home who were listening to this that this was being done for future cost effectiveness purposes and not because there was any kind of health hazard associated with their water. Mr. Anderson added that the level for iron removal was a secondary level which was .3 part per million removal and they wanted to get below that parts per million of iron. Now the plants were operating in the .2 to .3 range. By changing the filter media they would be dropping it below .1 and improve the quality of the water. Councilmember Sanger indicated it would help them keep having clean water in the future in a cost effective manner. Mr. Anderson indicated it stated in the resolution that the report was received from the Utility Superintendent and that the bids shall be tabulated by the Utility Superintendent That should be changed to "Director of Public Works". It was the introduction paragraph and sections 3 and 5 Councilmember Sanger asked,when this would be done? Mr. Anderson replied they would like to put it out for bids, the specifications were ready to go out and they would be advertising July 29-August 13th for bids. Bids would come in August and then come before the Council with an award presentation on the September 7th meeting. Council member Santa asked once they got the bids, how long did the process of rehabilitating a water treatment plant take? Mr. Anderson replied if everything went as planned, about 40 days. i Council Meeting Minutes . • -14- , July 19, 2004 It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 04-084 accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 20041300, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids, with an amendment resolution changing "Utility Superintendent" in the Introduction and Sections 3 and 5 to "Director of Public Works". The motion passed 7-0. 8b. Request by Charles Stinson to vacate utility easement at 2545 Huntington Avenue South, Case Nos. 04-13-VAC, 2545 Huntington Ave S. Ordinance No. 2274-04 Mr. Locke indicated that this was acted on at the June 215t meeting and the first reading was approved by the City Council. It was a vacation of a utility easement necessary for the Biltmore Addition subdivision that was also acted on in June. There were no utilities in the easement and Public Works had reviewed it. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve Ordinance No. 2274-04 to vacate a utility easement at 2545 Huntington Ave South as requested by Biltmore Land Group, adopt ordinance, approve summary and authorization publication. Councilmember Sanger stated that she would be opposing this motion for the same reasons that she had opposed this entire project all along. The motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember Sanger opposed. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs indicated he had received good feedback on,the recent fireworks. They were some of the best in the Western suburbs and he wanted to congratulate staff and the people who did the fireworks. The Fourth of July was a smashing success. Councilmember Velick wanted to note better than the best fireworks in the West, they had the best Police and Dispatch. She had the opportunity to have a nde along and see how things worked She learned a lot and they were good people. She thanked the Police and Dispatch. 10. Adjournment The City Council meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. to an Executive Session. 11. Executive Session to discuss City Manager Performance Evaluation At 8:40 p.m., the Council moved to executive session to discuss the City Manager performance evaluation. All Councilmembers were present. City Manager Tom Harmening arrived at 8:50 p.m. and attended the remainder of the Executive Session. Council Meeting Minutes -15- July 19, 2004 It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to adjourn the Executive Session. The motion passed 7-0. The Executive Session was adjourned at 9:55 ..m. qty Clerk May+r