HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1979/06/11PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A. regular meeting of the Mounds View City Council was called to order by
Mayor McCarty at 7:35 PM on June 11, 1979 at the Mounds View City Hall,
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112.
MEMBERS PRESENT ALSO PRESENT
Mayor McCarty Attorney Meyers
Councilmember Forslund City Administrator Nelson
Councilmember Rowley Building Zoning Official Rose
Councilmember Ziebarth
,;Mayor McCarty introduced the new City Administrator, Mr. Jeff Nelson, to
those present. Attorney Meyers swore Mr. Nelson into office. The Council
members all congratulated Mr. Nelson and welcomed him.
MSP (McCarty /Ziebarth) to approve the May 29, 1979 minutes as corrected.
4 ayes
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND REQUESTS
Bill Doty, 3049 Bronson, stated there is a need for a fence by the drainage
ditch on the west side of Woodcrest Park because it presents a danger to
toddlers who might wander over and fall into it. Councilmember Ziebarth
indicated it had not been done in the past and it may become a costly pre
cedence if other parks request fencing for other reasons. Councilmember
Rowley suggested it might be brought up to Parks and Recreation Dept. again.
Councilmember Forslund suggested the Council should address this park
specifically. Councilmember Ziebarth indicated he would bring it up to
Parks Recreation at the next meeting. Mr. Doty stated he was asking the
Council to act on the matter.
MSP (McCarty /Ziebarth) to direct Parks and Recreation to do a feasibility
report, including cost, to alleviate the attractive nuisance at Woodcrest
Park and any other parks they suggest.
4 ayes
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Rowley asked that Item D be removed, and City Administrator
Nelson asked that Item B be removed from the agenda.
MSP (Rowley /Forslund) to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
ITEM A. Approve the minor subdivision of a 30' x 90' area from 8490 Sunnyside
Road to 2708 County Road J, with the provision that the 30' x 90'
parcel be attached to the deed, and becomes part of the legal
description, of 2708 County Road J.
ITEM C. Authorize the City Staff to install a Stop Sign at the intersection
of Sunnyside Avenue and Sherwood Road.
4 ayes
June 11, 1979 Page 2
ITEM E. Approval of the June 11, 1979, bills for payment:
Expenditures: $66,714.90; Payroll: $3,621.54
ITEM F. Approve the following licenses:
M. Fitzgerald Construction new
Equity Construction Company sign contractor new
L. Gudmunsew Construction renewal
ITEM G. Schedule Public Hearing for Mounds View Industrial Park #3 7:40 p.m.,
June 25, 1979
r.;
Councilmember Rowley :reader the- Res blutioa•4987Ato those present. She
queationod the second paragraph whether it should be conceptual approval
of the three -phase program. City Administrator Nelson stated he had
discussed the resolution with the Finance Director and the issue is
somewhat different than what the policy indicates. This issue deals with
Public Works acquisition rather than maintenance.
City Administrator Nelson suggested this resolution should pertain to new
construction.
MSP (Rowley /Forslund) to adopt Resolution #987 with the deletion of the
following: "...and all existing residential property which title changes
ownership are required to...."
4 ayes
City Administrator Nelson stated that appointment of the City Weed
Inspector needs some clarification and he will draft a document for the
next Council meeting for their action.
MAJOR SUBDIVISION- -GALE ADDITION -8277 GROVELAND ROAD
Official Rose reported the property is located at the corner of Groveland
'and Arden Ave. below Groveland Park. Mr. Chuck Buzzell began working with
the city in late 1977 or early 1978 with an original proposal of 5 lots
to be split. Planning Commission and Staff recommended a 30 -foot road
easement for the extension of Fairchild Ave. Council reviewed the matter
and indicated Fairchild Ave. would probably not be extended. It was then
approved as a plat lot proposal. The app! is now coming back with a
6 lot plat. Planning Commission has reviaved and recommended the proposal
to Council. At the 5/28 meeting, due to storm water problems, a study was
ordered to be done in the Ardan Avenue area. This study has been reviewed
and Resolution #983 has been adopted. At the 5/14/79 Council meeting,
Mr. Buzzell was asked to proceed according to this new resolution. It
requires a development agreement that encompasses grading, providing
sewer and water, bonding and escrow. The applicant has provided specifi-
cations which will be added to the development agreement. He has proposed
a grading plan and on -site retention.
June 11, 1979 Page 3
Official Rose stated that Staff would recommend that Council give the
applicant direction as to ponds, public right -of -way, and culverts.
Councilmember Ziebarth questioned how much ponding would be on public
property and how wide the ditch would be. Official Rose indicated it would
be 1 or 2 feet above the bank on street right -of -way. The ditch would have
a 5 -foot base with 3 to 1 slopes and would be approximately 2. to 3 feet
deep. The opening at the top would be 8 or 9 feet.
Councilmember Ziebarth stated he had a problem with the manner in which
to proceed. The developer could present several proposals and it becomes
a matter of what the city can live with. He suggested the Council should
indicate what they disapprove of and the engineer could use that to base
his recommendation. He felt the size of the ponds would allow the water
to stand for some time and create mosquito problems, etc. He didn't think
the slopes would be as great.
Councilmember Rowley expressed concern with the standing water and, when
the pond is full, where would the water go. It would be undesirable should
pumps be required. She stated she was not pleased with the ponding partially on
the public easemerst; she felt it should all be on private property.
Mayor McCarty and Councilmember Forslund both indicated they thought the
plan should employ a gentle slope rather than a deep ditch.
MS (Forslund /McCarty) to have Short Elliott- Hendrickson review the plans
and specifications for a recommendation and input, since this is a first
step in this direction. This review would be done at developer's expense.
MS (McCarty Ziebarth) to amend the motion to add that Building Zoning
Official Rose be instructed to give SEH information as to the type of
system that Council desires.
Keith Nelson, Duane C. Olson Engineers, clarified the applicant's proposal.
He stated the applicant is proposing a 3 to 1 slope which is 3 -feet hori-
zontal to 1 -foot vertical. The ditch would have a 5 -foot bottom and would
be 28 -feet from the back of the curb. It would be 2 to 3 feet higher than
the street along Ardan Avenue. The ditch could handle 10" to 30" per day
and could retain for three days after a 100 -year event. When the ponds
were full, they would overflow into the street and the storm sewer could
take the overflow. Mr. Nelson stated he couldn't see the merits of
installing culverts.
Councilmember Ziebarth questioned where the water lines would run. Mr.
Nelson indicated there may be a portion of the 4" bituminous curb removed
and replaced. The sewer would be 20 feet inside the property line and
would have adequate depth with 7 -foot cover to protect from freezing.
At this point, City Administrator Nelson suggested the applicant should
delineate what he intends to do, since what he indicated tonight and what
he had indicated to Staff previously were two different things.
Mayor McCarty asked whether it would be feasible to employ gentle slopes
rather than a ditch. Mr. Nelson indicated they were concerned with the
aesthetics of the lots; they didn't want a low swail constantly full of
J"sne 11, 1979 Page 4
water. He stated they had used a 35% runoff coefficient which is adequate
for residential. Official Rose stated they had run through a study and
this system easily had the proper capacity and actually superceded it.
Councilmember Rowley stated she would still like the engineers to look at
it so the development agreement can be prepared before the next meeting.
Councilmember Forslund withdrew the original motion and Mayor McCarty
withdrew the second, as well as the amendment. Councilmember Ziebarth
withdrew the second of the amendment.
d
MSP (Rowley /Forslund) to request Short Elliott- Hendrickson review the Gale
Addition proposed specifications and grading plans for a recommendation and
input prior to theapplicants submission of a development agreement and
before the June 25 Council meeting. This is contingent upon the applicant's
ability to fulfill the building requirements before that time. This review
should be at the applicant's expense. 4 ayes
MINOR SUBDIVISION BAYPORT BUILDERS- -7749 GREENWOOD DRIVE
Official Rose reviewed the proposal for the property located on Greenwood
Drive north of County Road I. The applicant was previously before the City
for a major subdivision into 10 lots. The Planning Commission had approved
the subdivision and sent to the Council. The applicant withdrew his request
He is now requesting subdivision of just one lot. The zone is single family
(R -1), sewer and water are available at the street, and the lot size meets
code requirements. The area is served by storm sewer but is Inadequate
for three -year storm and standing water has occurred in heavy rains. A
catch basin is located south of the property.
Councilmember Ziebarth questioned whether the applicant was trying to avoid
the drainage requirements or Resolution #983 by going to a minor subdivision
Mr. Villella stated this was not true, that the reasons were the present
market conditions and the costs involved to develop.
Councilmember Ziebarth questioned how he planned to
the property. Mr. Villella indicated his situation
neighboring residents and he had no specific plans.
according to City ordinances, they had the right to
control the runoff on
was the same as other
Mayor McCarty stated,
require it.
Mayor McCarty stated the Council wanted to cooperate but it was his feeling
Mr. Villella is attempting to vent the requirements. He further stated he felt
the subdivision should be developed as a major. Mr. Villella stated he held a Purchase
Agreement only on Lot #19. Councilmember Ziebarth stated that even if it wasn't a major
subdivision, the developer should still have control of the runoff.
Mr. Villella statE.J that his lot #19 is similar in contour as that of lot #46
across the street and he should be allowed to develop his lot in a similar
manner. He stated he feels it is unfair of the City to make the developer
improve the storm sewer in the area and he intends to improve the property
without it. Mayor McCarty stated the lack of drainage control on his land
could adversely affect the neighboring lots.
Mr. Villella, referring to the time of his original request for major sub-
divisio shred he had wo ted time and money in elt t.
the process and felt the
Council was fighting him.
June 11, 1979 Page 5
mayor McCarty stated Mr. Villella had not given the Council a chance to work
with him by withdrawing the request. He emphasized the Council's willing-
ness to work together with him and other developers, but time and patience
P i is necessary to work out details.
MSP (McCarty /Ziebarth) to deny the request for Bayport Builders based on
Ordinances 42.05 subdivision 1, section 7; 42.05 subdivision 1, item B;
42.08 section 2; and 42.05 subdivision 4, section 2.
4 ayes
MINOR SUBDIVISION KENNETH SJODIN -8100 GROVELAND ROAD
Official Rose explained the applicant is proposing a minor subdivision
located on Groveland Road north of Highway 10. The applicant requests
dividing he property into an east area measuring 77.5' x 200' and creating
a land locked parcel to the rear measuring 258' x 230'. There are existing
sewer and water services for Lot A from Groveland Road. There would be no
existing services or public access for the land locked parcel.
Mr. Sjodin explained the lot to be built upon would become an L- shaped lot
200' x 77.5' which meets code requirements. An existing house would be
torn down. He stated it was not unusual to have land- locked parcels and
there were several in the area to the north. He didn't feel there was much
chance of Knollwood ;oing through, but if it did, there would be an easement.
Mayor McCarty inquired as to the number of land- locked parcels and Mr. Sjodin
replied there probably were four or five. Councilmember Rowley, checking a
map of the area, located two. She stated that one of these had gone tax
forfeit.
Mayor McCarty stated that pressure for roads usually results after creating
a land locked area. He further stated that a possible Knollwood extension
would run along approximately 11 other properties and their input would be
helpful.
Councilmember Rowley questioned what guarantee the City would have the
Mr. Sjodin would not let the area go tax forfeit. Mr. Sjodin replied he
would not let this happen. He is only interested in severing Lot B from
Lot A which he plans to develop; that its not wise to leave an area that
large on the developed lot.
MS (Rowley /McCarty) to deny the minor subdivision because of the creation
of a land locked parcel and the lack of future plans and where easements
could be taken to service the area.
City Administrator Nelson suggested the possibility of preparing a resolution
to this effect.
Councilmember Rowley withdrew the previous motion.
MSP (Rowley /McCarty) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the
minor subdivision creating the laid- locked parcel with points that is is
inconsistent with planning and because of the inability to gain access for
roadway and extension of services.
4 ayes
June 11, 1979 Page 6
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL GEORGE IIALVORSON- -2908 HIGHWAY 10
Official Rose explained this matter had been tabled at the May 14 meeting
ar_d more information had been requested regarding off street parking, a
buffer for the homes to the south, Highway 10 access, data pursuant to
Resolution #983, and a Fire Dept. report. The developer has provided this
information, would like Council views for their consultants to look at, and
have agreed to the possibility of tabling the matter to give time for
Council clarification.
Thomas Steffens, 3250 W. 66th St., Edina, attorney for the developer,
stated they have a site plan which attempts to respond to Council requests.
The plan shows more detail as to buffer as requested. A letter is furnished
from the State Highway Dept. that indicates approval and a permit is in
process for access to Highway 10. The site plan and accompanying memo
detail how to handle drainage problems per Resolution #983. There is also
a letter from the Fire Dept. in agreement, assuming site plan includes
satisfactory information. The only remaining item is that of drainage.
He stated it is their understanding this site plan and memos are to be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and comment.
Mayor McCarty inquired as to the number of curb cuts to be made. Mr.
Lundquist stated there would be just one; that the Highway Dept. will
permit repositioning it a few feet, and the Fire Dept. suggested enlarging
it. Bonding has been done with the Highway Department.
Mayor McCarty asked Mr. Lundquist to explain the buffering proposed. Mr.
Lundquist stated they propose to put up a finished fence to contain the
tenants. Building A would have no windows facing neighborhood houses.
Suitable trees and sod would be provided.
Mayor McCarty asked if the developer still felt it necessary for the
private driveway. Mr. Lundquist replied they did and the Fire Marshal
has indicated he wants it for vehicle access. He went on to explain it
would be 4 or 5 feet wide for only emergEncy vehicles.
Mayor McCarty expressed concern regarding the amount of traffic pouring
into the residential neighborhood.
Councilmember Ziebarth inquired as to the zoning on the east side of the
building and what screening was proposed. Mr. Lundquist indicated it was
zoned the same as this property and felt it was difficult to screen 5 feet.
Councilmember Ziebarth asked Mr. Lundquist to explain his solution to the
summer parking problem. Mr. Lundquist explained that an arrangement could
be used where certain doors in the garage could be held open in the summer,
thereby releasing 14 spaces to the outside and providing use without charge
in the garage. This would increase the code requirement 1.5 spaces per
unit to the outside. In the winter the door arrangement would be such that
62 spaces would be provided. The City could determine when the door
arrangement could take effect for the summer or winter. Councilmember
Ziebarth indicated he had wanted an arrangement providing adequate parking
in the summer so there would be no need to park anywhere than the stalls.
He further stated he didn't feel that adding the 14 spaces would be
sufficient to keep tenants from parking in the R -1 area.
June 11, 1979 Page 7
Councilmember Fcrsiund stated she had a problem with the 25 -foot easement
becoming an aczess for the developer's property since it was designated as
a public road. Mr. Lundquist stated it couldn't be a public road because
it would dead end at the fence. The developer proposes to use the 25 foot
easement and maintain it.
Councilmember Rowley stated her concerns for the possibility of crime in
the enclosed walk between buildings. Mr. Lundquist indicated any possible
crime might be alleviated by prop•'r lighting and the movement of people.
Councilmember Forslund questioned the possibility of the roof collapsing
from the proposed water retention. Mr. Lundquist stated that the roof can
take a great load and there would never be more than 5" of water, which
would be released slowly.
Mr. Lundquist stated the proposed
water retention is consistent with the portion of the SEH document, which
they perceive to be consistent with the City's request. Councilmember
Rowley informed him the report had been accepted, but the plan was denied by
Council.
Doug Dinndorf 2901 Oakwood Drive, expressed the concerns of the residents
and presented a petition with 54 signatures opposed to the project. The
problems cited were: the traffic increase to the south in the Oakwood/
Knollwood area poses a safety hazard to the young children in the area;
the parking problems -he doesn't think the door arrangement proposed will
be sufficient; and the problem of high density next to a low density area-
the residents feel the proposed development is totally inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan for the area.
Neil Loeding, 5046 Longview Drive, stated the water released from the roof
will be taken into the ground below and affect the drainage problem.
Janet Schuldt, 7887 Spring Lake Rd., stated that if the developer is allowed
to develop the private road, it would cut off the end of Spring Lake Road,
preclude development of several lots, and create land locked property.
Roger Koopmeiners Knollwood Dr. NE,
g 7 768 stated his concerns regarding the possibi-
lity of apartment buildings and residents' vehicles being subject to
vandalism; and Police inability to enforce a private roadway unless its
marked as a fire lane.
A poll of the residents in attendace was as follows:
Vern Campbell 2841 Oakwood Opposed
David Long 7749 Knollwood
Pat Long 7749 Knollwood
Sharon Marantz 7769 Knollwood
George Marantz 7769 Knollwood
Doug Dinndorf 2104 Oakwood
Jan Schuldt 7581 Spring Lk. Rd.
Mary Stevenson 7759 Knollwood Drive
Jim Hockert 2900 Oakwood Drive
Roger Koopmeiners 7768 Knollwood Drive
Betty Koopmeiners 7768 Knollwood Drive
David Huebner 7758 Knollwood Drive
Ron Schleiss 7786 Groveland
Isabelle Wille 7911 Spring Lk. Rd.
June 11, 1979 Page 8
M (Forslund) to deny the request due to public welfare, health and safety
with reference to the Planning Commission action of 4/25/79.
(Motion fails for lack of a second.)
Attorney Meyers suggested the Council review the information provided from
the developers, get professional input, and then make a decision.
Official Rose stated that Staff feels the material submitted by the developer
is inadequate for the Council to make a decision in regard to: traffic
problems, access, use of the 25 -foot easement, zoning, grading plans, and
a plan for retention of storm drainage, and possibly a loop road that would
benefit the property to the east.
Mr. Lundquist stated he feels there are some things beyond the scope of the
developer, that they can only solve the problems on their own property, the
proposed private road, for example. He stated it could be a public drive,
but they suggested the private road so they could maintain it. Council-
member Rowley suggested checking with Spring Lake Park to see what they have
in mind for the roadway.
MSP (Ziebarth /McCarty) to continue the hearing on July 9, 1979.
4 ayes
For the benefit of the interested residents, Councilmember Rowley pointed
out the issue will be discussed at the July 2 agenda session at 7:00 PM in
the Council Chambers.
COUNCILMEMBER FORSLUND'S REPORT
Councilmember Forslund stated a citizen had been involved in an accident at
the corner of Spring Lk. Rd. and Bronson. She stated its a bad intersection
with a hedge blocking the view and could use a four -way stop sign.
MSP (Forslund /Ziebarth) to direct Staff to make a study of the traffic in
the area of the intersection of Spring Lk. Rd. and Bronson with input from
both the Police and Public Works Departments.
4 ayes
Councilmember Forslund reported that Planning Commission had made a motion
to request Council address the question of establishing flood plain and
wetland areas in Mounds View to assist in requests for variances and sub-
divisions brought before the Planning Commission.
MSP (Forslund /Ziebarth) to direct Staff to research flood plains wetlands
through the Rice Creek W tershed, Ramsey County, or any available material
so as to compile a packet for Council members to study.
COUNCILMEMBER ROWLEY'S REPORT
Councilmember Rowley reported that the Lakeside Park Commission meeting
will be next Thursday at Lakeside, rather than the Council Chambers.
Councilmember Rowley requested Staff check the lilac bushes on Groveland
and County Road I as it does restrict motorists' visibility.
4 ayes
June 11, 1979 Page 9
COUNCILMEMBER ZIEBARTH'S REPORT
Councilmember Ziebarth questioned Official pose how the Midwest Shows had
responded to the agreement drawn up by the City. Official Rose indicated
there had been no problem, but next year there should be no more rides
than there were this year.
ATTORNEY MEYER'S REPORT
Attorney Meyers had no report.
CITY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
City ?administrator Nelson indicated some Staff individuals have been
unable to take vacation because of extenuating circumstances in the last
six months and have requested they have a thirty -day extension.
MSP (McCarty /Rowley) to extend the period for vacation use for employees
named in the memo attached dated June 8, 1979 per the City Administrator's
request. 4 ayes
City Administrator Nelson then presented items for Councilmembers to sign.
MAYOR MCCARTY'S REPORT
Mayor McCarty reported that a survey was carried out on 6/3/79 for the
drainage on Ardan Avenue by Dr. Goebel, Mr. Loeding and Mayor McCarty.
City Administrator Nelson was asked to contact Drjlachmeier to determine
his progress on his study and when it may be expected.
MSP (Ziebarth /Rowley) to adjourn the meeting at 11:05.
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
dieil
4 ayes
A G E N D A
Mounds View City Council
June 11, 1979
1. Roll call of officials.
2. Approval of minutes of May 29, 1979.
3. Citizen comments and requests.
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS
FOR THE MINUTES.
4. Approval of Consent Agenda:
ITEM A. Approve minor subdivision of Kenneth Sjodin- -8490 Sunnyside Rd.
B. Approve appointment ._af -Gity- Weed- Inspector.
C. Approve stop sign at intersection of Sunnyside Sherwood Roads.
D. Approve Resolutiun #987 regarding remote meter installation.
E. Bills for payment.
F. Licenses for approval.
5. Planning Zoning Items:
A. Major subdivision Gale Addition 8277 Groveland Road.
B. Minor subdivision Bayport Builders 7749 Greenwood Drive.
C. Minor subdivisioi; Kenneth Sjodin 8100 Groveland Road
D. Development proposal George Halverson 2908 Highway 10
6. Reports of Council
7. Attorney Report
8. Administrative Items
9. Adjournment
CONSENT AGENDA
June 11, 1979
The consent agenda is a technique designed to expedite handling of routine and
miscellaneous official business of the City Council. The entire agenda may
be adopted by the Council in one motion. The motion for adoption is non
debatable and must receive unanimous approval. By request of any individual
Council Member, any item can be removed from the consent agenda and placed upon
the regular agenda for debate.
ITEM A. Approve the miner subdivision of a 30' x 90' area from 8490 Sunnyside
Road to 2708 County Road J, with the provision that the 30' x 90'
parcel be attached to the deed, and becomes part of the legal
description, of 2708 County Road J.
ITE'1 B. Appointment of Jack Shields, Fcrester, to also be the City's Weed
Inspector, effective June 1, 1979.
ITEM C. Authorize the City Staff to install a Stop Sign at the intersection
of Sunnyside Avenue and Sherwood Road.
ITEM D. Adopt Resolution #987 relaying to the policy on the installation of
remote water meters.
ITEM E. Approval of the June 11, 1979, bills for payment:
Expenditures: $66,714.90; Payroll: $3,621.54
ITEM F. Approve the following licenses:
M. Fitzgerald Construction new
Equity Construction Company sign contractor new
L. Gudmunsew Construction renewal
ITEM G. Schedule Public Hearing for Mounds View Industrial Park #3 7:40 p.m.,
June 25, 1979
City Council
City of Mounds View
2401 Hwy. 10
St.Paul, Minn.,55112
5046 Longview Drive
St.Paul, Minn.,55112
7/2/79
Dear Councilmembers:
At the most recent Council meeting I indicated that significant
material had been left out of the minutes of the June 11 Meeting relative
to comments that I made on development of the George Halverson property.
However, I wanted to refer again to the memorandum from Lundquist Arch-
itects, Inc., before commenting further.
On page 2 of the memorandum dated May 30, 1979, Lundquist Architects
apparently claim that the soil under the projected building: will take
approximately two parts of runoff water for each part of rainfall on the
roofs of the building one part because the roofs retain the rain wat-
er, and one part evidently because the land under the buildings is shel-
tered from rain. If this reasoning were to be accepted, then, in the
usual
sit„_Ation where rain is not collected on the roof, one part of rain
water would be taken by the soil under the building for each part that
falls on the building roof. This i a neat piece of arithmq.tic, but not
one that squares with the well recognized and accepted principle that
impervious surfaces contribute virtually all of their rainfall to total
runoff without regard to the condition of the underlying soil.
Sincerely,
Neil W. Loeding