Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packets - 1999/08/23
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY,AUGUST 23, 1999 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick,Marty, Stigney, Thomason 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council August 9, 1999 Minutes 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 6. REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Consider Resolution 5362, a Resolution Authorizing an Interfund Advance from the Special Projects Fund to the Golf Course. C. Consider Resolution 5363, a Resolution Authorizing a Golf Course Assistant position. D. Consideration of Resolution 5361, Approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement for Edgewood Drive and TH 10. E. Licenses for Approval. F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 pm on September 13, 1999 to consider First Reading Approval of Ordinance No 637, an Ordinance amending Section 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code to set signage standards in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy,Recreational and Preservation zoning districts. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR A. Citizens: Before speaking must give their full name and address for the minutes. Please limit your comments to three minutes. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 7:05 A Public Hearing for the consideration of Resolution 5353, a resolution contemplating the denial of a conditional use permit for an over-sized garage to be located at 2809 Woodale Drive. 7:10 B. Public Hearing for the consideration of a conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential facility and for the Introduction(First Reading) of Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning property located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business, to R-4,High Density Residential. C:UOANB\AGENDAS\CC\8-23-99.CC Page Two City Council Agenda August 23, 1999 7:15 C. Public Hearing to consider wetland alternation permit and the Introduction(First Reading) of Ordinance 638, an ordinance vacating part of a drainage and public utility easement over lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square. 7:20 D. Public Hearing Amending Chapter 202 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled"Public Improvements". E. Resolution 5364, Approving Agreement Between the City of Mounds View and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local No. 232. F. Consideration of Resolution 5360, a resolution authorizing abatement of a nuisance vehicle located at 7656 Greenfield Avenue. G. Changing Space/Showers at MVCC. H. Review of Staffing Positions for Housing Inspector, Planning Associate and Assistant to the City Administrator. I. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 635, An Ordinance to Enact a New Chapter of the Mounds View Code of Ordinances to Administer and Regulate the Location, Relocation, Installation and Reinstallation of Facilities in the Public Right of Way in the Public Interest. J. First Reading of Ordinance No. 640, An Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 902 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Driveways and Repealing Provisions of Chapter 902 Relating to Street Openings. K. Continuation of Second Reading and Approval of Ordinance No. 630, an Ordinance to Enact a New Chapter of the Mounds View Code of ordinances to Administer and Regulate the Public Right of Way in the Public Interest, and to Provide for the Issuance and Regulation of Right-of-Way Permits. 1. Roll Call/Vote: Thomason, Quick, Stigney, Marty, Coughlin 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, September 7, 1999 - 6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 13 - 7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT C:VOANB\AGENDAS\CC\8-23-99.CC City Council Memo -August 20, 1999 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Re: August 23, 1999 City Council Meeting Another busy week, here's what we have on the agenda: 7. B. Resolution 5362 Authorizing Interfund Advance from Special Projects Fund to Golf Course Fund: This is in follow up to the discussion of this past Monday evening regarding the ongoing operations of the golf course. By passing this resolution, the operations of the golf course should remain whole for the next four full budget years. 7. C. Resolution 5363 Authorizing a Golf Course Assistant Position: This resolution also follows up on the discussion of Monday. As John stated Monday he has been working without an assistant since May. Since our work is seasonable, the best way to keep someone is to make the position full time and year around. This will be the case with this position as well, and with approval of this resolution,the hiring process will commence. 10. A. Public Hearing regarding Oversized Garage CUP: The Council was informed of this conditional use permit at the August 2 work session. The garage is considerably larger than the house. Jim Ericson's report provides the details. 10. B. Public Hearing regarding Realife Cooperative Residential Facility: Council can refer to Jim Ericson's memo on this. 10. C. Public Hearing regarding Ordinance 638 Vacating Drainage and Utility Easement at Edgewood Square: Jim's memo on this item is very complete. 10. D. Public Hearing regarding Chapter 202 Entitled Public Improvements: Mike's report details the changes to this chapter of the code for public improvements and assessments stemming from the policy changes from the Streets Committee report. Mike will be on hand to review the provisions if there are any questions. 10. E. Resolution 5364, Approving Agreement Between the City of Mounds View and L.E.L.S.: This agreement is making its first appearance to the new members of the Council, and while generally it is the practice to review these at a work session prior to a council meeting, my explanation here will show why that wasn't done. This agreement is the first collective bargaining agreement between the City and the police sergeants. Well over a year ago, the negotiation process commenced and when it was clear that an impasse prevented resolution of various provisions,the matter went to mediation and finally arbitration. The agreement you have before you is the language settled upon by the arbitrator last month, and now signed by the union members. The City is now obligated to abide by the language and conditions therein, so no modification can be made. The provisions in this agreement apply to the officers for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, where only in a couple of minor instances (uniform allowance) have the provisions been applied to their work conditions. Therefore, with this agreement, those conditions that have been withheld will be released to cover this year and last. The Council is advised to approve the agreement as presented and if there are provisions members wish to have changed, please advise me for their consideration for the next contract which will negotiated likely this fall for next year and maybe beyond. 10. F. Resolution 5360 Abating A Nuisance Vehicle at 7656 Greenfield Avenue: Please refer to the staff memo on this item. 10. G. Capital Improvement Request for Changing Space and Showers at the MVCC: Terri Blattenbauer's memo covers this item, which has been reviewed by the Council at the work session. 10. H. Review of Staffing Positions for Housing Inspector, Planning Associate and Assistant to the City Administrator: At the work session, we discussed combining the code enforcement functions of the Planning Associate with the housing inspection functions of the housing inspector position, and moving the housing program management functions of the housing inspector to the Planning Associate. Some other changes would be incorporated as well into the Planning Associate position which would take advantage of Jim Ericson's abilities, and which should result in an adjusted compensation. Rick's memo outlines the cost details of this move. I feel that this is a cost effective move that allows the City to use Ericson's planning and program management abilities, while relieving him of the less technical but time consuming responsibilities of code enforcement. In other words, I see this as a good move for the City and for Jim. The new position of housing inspector can start out with no ambiguity of responsibilities as well. In our discussion, I noted that applications had closed for the Assistant to the City Administrator position. I have had the applications pointed and will attempt setting up interviews this next week for a selection soon thereafter. I mentioned that I would be considering Kevin Carroll for the position as well, which will again require some thought on duty assignments in that eventuality. In my discussions with Rick, we have approached this from the perspective of making minimal changes in overall cost, recognizing and rewarding known meritorious work, capitalizing on personal growth potential, and meeting the needs of the City. As is always the case with good employees,their personal growth and abilities do create opportunities for the City to received greater benefit,but that can also come with some additional cost. In this case, we have tried to maintain a balance. The majority of the Council seemed to indicate that the general concept was acceptable. Rick's figures show the determined cost. If those mesh, staff will proceed accordingly. 10. I. Second Reading of Ordinance 635,Enacting a New Chapter to Administer and Regulate the Location, Relocation, Installation and Reinstallation of Facilities in the Public Right of Way. 10. J. First Reading of Ordinance 640,Amending Title 900, Chapter 902 Relating to Driveways and Repealing Provisions of Chapter 902 Relating to Right of Way Permits. 10. K. Continuation of Second Reading of Ordinance 630,Enacting a New Chapter to Administer and Regulate the Public Right of Way in the Public Interest, and to Provide for the Issuance of and Regulation of Right of Way Permits: Scott Riggs will be present for these three items. The revisions are enclosed. Scott's cover letter for this item and the next two indicate the second readings should be complete prior to the approval of Ordinance 630, the overall ROW ordinance. He can discuss this further on Monday. In other news, Bill Clark started Monday as the new Police Chief. I will ask Bill to attend the opening of the Council meeting on Monday for his introduction to the community. He has been active already in getting to know people. He and I had lunch with Nick Temali of the school district today, and he has been making the rounds so far. Samanatha Orduno is returning to the area as the new city manager for Richfield. For those of you who do not know Sam, she was my predecessor here in Mounds View and has been in California for the past four years. I think she will do a fine job for a good community down there. Around here,the paving of the parking lot is still being done. We are not sure just yet when the final layer will be done and when the new intersection can be opened. Two new laptop computers are in and being configured for council member use. They should be available for two of you on Monday. Council may want to think about how best to get on line if you already are not, and who should pay for it. We have not had that discussion, but I anticipate we will need to. The weekly staff meeting this week simply centered on the budget for 2000, on which the Council will be meeting about on Monday afternoon at 4:30. Each staff member reviewed their departmental budget and any highlights. Generally, there are no significant initiatives for 2000. The biggest change in dollar amounts appear to stem from the lack of airport related expenditures. For purposes of forming up a budget, I directed a 3% adjustment in wages be included. Council will note that the maximum levy increase allowable by the state is only .93%, and is essentially the same amount of revenues over expenditures in this preliminary budget. Some issues for the Council to consider on Monday will be wages, airport related concerns,the community center transfer,the franchise fee, consideration of developing a fund for street improvements and long term cash flow trends. Staff also was introduced to Bill Clark, who already had met everyone. We also talked some about the status of the housing inspector, planner and assistant positions. Accommodating vacation schedules through the end of the year was also touched on. I attended a LMC Board session and board orientation Thursday. I was off on Tuesday on an invite from some old Benson golf friends for an annual outing of theirs, which would have been more fun if I had not come down with a cold. Cari reports her first week in St. Joe is going fine and is finding some issues remarkably similar to here. We have the new Office 2000 software loaded up now on the office computers. Council members may note some minor differences in report looks. We expect to be able to do quite a bit more with 2000 as we get to learn it, and it should integrate nicely with our web site maintenance. Have a good weekend and see you on Monday. ' ,t9 4 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW MEETING MINUTES U 1\1 A p! nu a Pa� MONDAY,AUGUST 9, 1999 8:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney, and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday,August 9, 1999 City Council Agenda Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of Item 10-I,Discussion Regarding the Information Request Policies of the City of Mounds View. Council Member Marty requested clarification of Item 10-I. Mayor Coughlin stated, as per staff memorandum,there had been a significant amount of concern and consternation over the City's request of information policy, and the timeliness of the process. City Administrator Whiting requested the withdrawal of Item 10-C,Right-of-Way Ordinance No. 635, Continuation of Second Reading. He stated this item would be available for consideration at the August 23, 1999 City Council Meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To accept the July 12, 1999 City Council Agenda as presented, with the addition of Item 10-I, and the withdrawal of Item 10-C. Ayes - 5. Nays - 0. Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, July 26, 1999 City Council Minutes Mayor Coughlin requested clarification of page 5, first full paragraph, second sentence to indicate"He stated he had grown up in a strict religious background, and dancing was something that was not highly touted." Mayor Coughlin requested all inferences to "Minneapolis term limits coalition vs. Keith"be corrected to state"Minneapolis term limits coalition vs. Keefe" 1 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Mayor Coughlin requested clarification of Page 23, third paragraph,Motion,to indicate "...Supreme Court. and After Sixty Days Have Passed, the City Council Will Explore All Avenues Available To Find Resolution of Said Inconsistencies." Council Member Stigney requested Pages 16, 17 and 20,with reference to William Dody,be corrected to reflect the proper spelling of his name, William Doty. Council Member Stigney requested Page 19 which indicates the spelling of the name of Samantha Arduna,be corrected to reflect the correct spelling of the name Samantha Orduna. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To accept the June 29, 1999 City Council minutes as corrected. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Abstain— 1 (Marty) Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 6. REPORTS Council Member Stigney reported he had attended the August 4, 1999, Planning Commission Meeting. He stated there was discussion regarding a conditional use permit application for an oversized garage at 2809 Woodale Drive. He stated the Commission unanimously voted not to approve that request. He stated there was discussion concerning the request by MSP Real Estate for an assisted living facility, and continuing discussion in regard to parking and staffing requirements. He stated there was discussion regarding the vacation of a drainage easement for Lots 17 and 18, Edgewood Square, Pinewood Circle, and there was a unanimous vote not to vacate. He stated the public hearing for this matter was to be set pursuant to the present Council Consent Agenda. He stated there was consideration of the proposed ordinance amending billboard codes for PF and CRP Zoning Districts, and the ordinance was unanimously approved. Council Member Stigney stated that further discussion occurred after the meeting, in regard to a "flea-market"type sale of rugs at the Holiday Stationstore. He stated it had been determined that this was the result of an oversight, and the rugs have since been removed. Council Member Thomason had no report. Mayor Coughlin stated he had attended non-stop meetings for quite some time. He stated he was invited by a Ramsey County Commissioner to attend a Focus group,where discussion was held in regard to the position of County Manager. He stated that the County Manager had accepted a position in California, and Ramsey County was presently looking for a new manager. He stated they had attempted to develop a comprehensive plan for the job description to allow for more effective advertisement of the position. Mayor Coughlin stated he had attended an I-35W Corridor Coalition meeting with Community Development Director Jopke. He stated this was a substantial meeting,which focused distinctly 2 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC upon certain elements of the I-35 corridor, and what could possibly be done to redevelop areas of this corridor, including Mounds View. He stated an item brought forward by one of the meeting facilitator was that due to the City's wide right-of-way on what is now called County Road 10, there is some possibility of redevelopment of some of that right-of-way into additional business parcels. He stated, however, it would require a significant undertaking and commitment by the City and the I-35 Corridor Coalition to accomplish this. He stated the Metropolitan Council has indicated they are willing to underwrite, by several millions of dollars, some efforts of redevelopment within the entire corridor. He stated both he and Community Development Director Jopke would be attending several more meetings in this regard, including an all day lock-in meeting.. Mayor Coughlin stated that Council Member Marty had requested he fill in as liaison at the Parks and Recreation meeting. He expressed his apologies to Council Member Marty, and explained that, due to the back to back scheduling of the meetings he had earlier attended,he arrived at the Parks and Recreation meeting just as they had adjourned. He stated the Commission had sworn in three newly appointed members at that meeting. Mayor Coughlin stated he had attended an informational meeting on Single House Legislature, also known as Unicameral Legislature. He stated, recently the Governor had made an extensive effort to have the Legislature consider combining the House and Senate into one group, thereby reducing the number of people required. He stated one of the concerns in recent years,was that more things were being done in Conference Committee than they were on the floor of the respective bodies, and a relatively few number of individuals from the House and Senate decide how a final bill will look. He stated there are times a final bill coming before the Governor is radically different than how it originated. He stated it is the hope of those people pushing for a Single House Legislature, to reduce the amount of"pork barrel"projects that are added to the bills in the Conference Committees. He stated the information he had received at this meeting was available for the Council Member's review, and was located on the Council/Mayoral desk in the office. Mayor Coughlin stated he had met with Representative Haake, and discussed wide ranging issues, including taxes on city purchases, and the ongoing push to a legislative end to the airport noise problems. Mayor Coughlin stated the renaming of County Road 10 had come forward at the I-35 Corridor Coalition meeting. He suggested renaming the road Mounds View Boulevard. He noted this would require the acceptance of the surrounding communities. He inquired if the Council would consider directing staff to pursue this matter, and discuss the renaming with other cities and their administrators. Council Member Marty stated he would be agreeable to this. Council Member Thomason stated she was agreeable, as long as it was not confused with Mounds View Drive. Council Member Stigney stated he was agreeable to County 10 or Mounds View Boulevard. He noted,however, the road would be Mounds View Boulevard within the City, and further down the road, it would be Coon Rapids Boulevard. He stated he would like to see some consistency, and possibly retain 3 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC the County Road 10 designation in addition to the new name. Council Member Quick stated he would agree to this suggestion. Mayor Coughlin stated that the City of Mounds View would be assigned a new area code, as of January 1, 2001. He stated he believed it would be (763). He stated Mounds View is the only City in the County of Ramsey that presently utilizes the (612) area code. He suggested the Council direct staff to request the Public Utilities Commission consider including Mounds View in the (651) area code, along with the rest of Ramsey County. He stated he had mentioned retaining (612),but believed this area code would be reserved for the areas of Minneapolis and Richfield, and did not think this would be an option. Council Member Quick stated he would be agreeable to the(651) area code. Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consent of the Council to direct City Administrator Whiting to research this matter, and report his findings to the Council. Mayor Coughlin stated, upon re-reading the Charter the prior weekend,he had come across a stipulation,which requires the Council to read aloud all resolutions, unless they are waived by unanimous consent of the Council. He suggested, in an attempt to acknowledge the spirit of that clause in the Charter, and in consideration that most of these resolutions do not necessarily need to be read aloud during the Council meeting,he would include within the Approval of the Agenda, the Approval of the Waiving of the Readings of the resolutions presented on the agenda, unless otherwise specified. Council Member Quick stated he was agreeable to that. Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to direct the City Administrator to add the appropriate verbiage to the agenda in this regard. Council Member Marty stated he had no report. Finance Director Kessel stated at the Work Session of the prior week, they discussed the certification of outstanding accounts receivable and utility bills. He stated the letters would be mailed this week, and the item would be listed on the Council Agenda within five to six weeks. He stated there will be a public hearing on any outstanding bills, and after that public hearing,the bills would be certified. Planning Associate Ericson updated the Council regarding the sale of rugs at the Holiday Stationstore. He stated the rug vendor did act in good faith, and the rug vendor was not Holiday Stationstore. He stated the vendor had come in to the City for a Solicitation Peddlers Permit, which is not the appropriate permit for this type of use. He stated this matter was not handled properly within the administration, and it was staff's responsibility that the rugs were being sold at that location. He added that,by no means was this something that Holiday Stationstore was attempting, after the City had approved their conditional use permit. He stated the vendor did agree to cut short his stay, and the rugs have gone. Council Member Thomason stated that the rugs had been sold at the Oasis in the past, and inquired if this was the same vendor. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not aware of that. 4 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Director of Public Works Ulrich stated, in regard to the suspension or revocation of Waste Management of Blaine's haulers license, they had learned that another segment of Waste Management had purchased this branch, and had been submitting the reports. He stated they had apologized for not catching this,however,the hauler did not return any of their telephone calls. He stated the Recycling Coordinator had been retained in the merge and did not follow through with any of the telephone calls, although they were still routed to him, and had not made them aware of the purchase of that company. He stated that all was well, and there would not be any action required on this matter. City Administrator Whiting stated he had attended several meetings, including one with the Acting Ramsey County Manager,regarding the appropriate name for Highway 10,which is currently still a State Highway, but will be going to the County. He stated there was discussion regarding the issues normally associated in this type of project. City Administrator Whiting stated he had recently attended a Golf Course Committee Meeting at the golf course. He stated Mayor Coughlin had also attended that meeting. He stated he thought it would be worthwhile for the Council to spend a Work Session reviewing the golf course operations, the budget, and the effect of the lawsuit on the budget. He stated there were questions in these areas, however,they had not had enough time to focus upon them. He suggested the Council schedule a Special Work Session for the following Monday to provide for this review, and devote some time to the subject, as it is a unique operation within the City. He stated the subject should be addressed in a public session format, so that interested parties could attend. Council Member Marty inquired if the matter could be reviewed at the following Work Session.. City Administrator Whiting stated that Work Session would consist of the budget discussion, and thought this matter might require more time than that. He stated the golf course budget could probably be addressed in a solid three-hour meeting,however,in light of the complexities of the City budget discussion, they would probably only be able to discuss the golf course issues in fairly general terms. He stated that was a good Work Session to commence discussion, and there would be other Work Sessions within the month of September. He stated the questions were relatively simple, however, experience shows there would probably be some issues that would require additional contemplation. He stated if a Special Session was scheduled for the following Monday, they could also address the replacement of the Housing Inspector position. He stated, if not, he would add this discussion as a part of the budget discussion at the next Work Session on August 23. Council Member Marty inquired how pressing the golf course issue was. City Administrator Whiting stated the schedule with the golf course differed from other City functions, in that any different process they might determine to undertake would be required to be known by mid-winter. He explained when the golf course is operating, it is a seven-day per week, light beyond sundown operation, and it is difficult to find the time to do make any necessary changes. Council Member Marty inquired if this issue would fit into the budget discussion,or if it was a totally separate matter. City Administrator Whiting stated this was a separately funded, and there were issues previously discussed,regarding long term cash flow, and issues of that nature to be considered. He stated there was some frustration,in that they have not been able to spend as much time as they would like with the Council, on this particular matter. He stated, in light of the time of year, consideration of this discussion at future Work Sessions might conflict with the general fund budget. 5 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to schedule a Special Work Session for Monday,August 16, at 6:00 p.m. to address the issues regarding the golf course discussion, and to entertain a brief discussion of the Community Development Department staffing options. He requested City Administrator schedule the Special Session for that date. City Administrator Whiting stated he had attended his first League of Minnesota Cities Board Retreat meeting, where he found his role to be similar to the Mayoral role, and was enlightened regarding its effects upon the mind. He stated this would be a one-day per month occurrence for him. City Attorney Riggs stated he had no report. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Approve Resolution 5358, appointing Park and Recreation Commissioners. C. Set a public hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, August 23, 1999, for the consideration of Resolution 5353, a resolution contemplating the issuance of a conditional use permit for an over-sized garage to be located at 2809 Woodale Drive. D. Consideration of Pathways Construction Bids. E. Approval of Final Plans and Specifications for the Woodcrest Park Wetland Mitigation Project and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids. F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday August 23, 1999, for the consideration of Resolution 5345, a resolution contemplating the issuance of a conditional use permit for an assisted living senior residential facility and for the Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning property located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business, to R-4, High Density Residential. G. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, August 23, 1999, for the Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance 638, an ordinance vacating part of a drainage and public utility easement over Lots 17 & 18,Edgewood Square. H. Authorization to Proceed with City Attorney for Personnel Policies Manual. I. Contractor Licenses for Approval. J. Set a Public Hearing for 7:20 p.m., Monday August 23, 1999, to consider amending Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code,entitled"Public Improvements". Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion. Council Member Stigney requested clarification regarding Item H. Mayor Coughlin stated this item was the result of discussion at the Work Session. He stated it had been the consensus of the Council to authorize the final production of the personnel manuals, and to provide the City Attorney the ability, as he was to peruse the final document, to proceed. 6 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Council Member Stigney stated he agreed with this, however, he did not believe all comments had been submitted for consideration at this time. He requested they make and effort to providing their comments,prior to the final review by the City Attorney. Council Member Stigney requested the removal of Item H from the Consent Agenda. MOTION/SECOND:Marty/Thomason. To accept Items A,B, C,D,E,F, G,I, and J of the Consent Agenda as listed. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin requested further comments, in regard to the policies manual,be presented to the Council as an entirety at a Work Session, so as to provide the consent of the Council to direct the City Attorney in the policy matter. Council Member Stigney stated this was a good idea. He explained this was what he had intended, and thought all the Council Members should review the personnel policies, and provide their comments for consideration at a Work Session,prior to the City Attorney's review. City Administrator Whiting clarified this action simply to authorize the City Council to agree to the expense of the City Attorney's review of the matter. He stated the City Attorney would work with the Council on all comments provided at the Work Sessions, in order to prepare the personnel policies for Council's final approval. He stated there were several questions, yet unresolved, and the matter is not in final form. He stated Council Member Stigney had provided various comments over a year ago,and these would be put on the table,and be discussed between the Council Members and City Attorney in the finalization of the matter. Mayor Coughlin stated, in that context, he would move approval of Item H. Council Member Stigney inquired when this would take place. City Administrator Whiting stated this would be during the September Work Session. Council Member Stigney stated he was agreeable to that, as long as their input is taken. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Quick. To Accept Item H of the Consent Agenda, as listed above. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR 7 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he had spoken with some of the residents of the City, regarding the tax on the utilities,which was promised to expire. He inquired if the expiration was to occur this year. City Administrator Whiting stated that Mr. Jahnke was referring to the franchise fee. He stated the original franchise fee agreement was a five-year ordinance,which had expired two years prior. He stated the last City Council had re-authorized it for one year at a time, therefore, it sunsets every year,He stated this was to provide the City Council and the residents the opportunity to debate the merits of the franchise fee during the budget discussion. He stated, if agreed to, this would allow the City to either commit to the expiration of the franchise fee by early October, or make changes to the budget to do without that source of revenue. Mr. Jahnke stated another of his concerns was in regard to TIF. He stated the previous Council and Mayor had conducted a study,which indicated the average income of the citizens in Mounds View to be fairly low. He stated he had heard discussion regarding the removal of a home, and replacing it with a $180,000 home, which would raise the taxes. He stated he felt strongly about TIF applications to business. He stated,within his neighborhood, there were five widows, all living on fixed incomes, who inquired if this action represented that the City was going to tear down their houses. He inquired if the City was attempting to get rid of the middle income houses, construct these beautiful homes,and raise the taxes,thereby driving the residents into the government housing along Highway 10,which he so opposes. He stated he realized this example was extreme,however did have concerns in this regard. Mayor Coughlin stated the City's housing program is completely and utterly voluntary. He stated it is simply a tool for those people who wish to upgrade their houses. He stated if a property was known to be substandard, this program provided a variety of options. He stated that some individuals have requested funds from the City through this redevelopment fund to demolish and old, substandard house, so they could redevelop their lot and construct a nicer house upon it, and continue to reside on that property. Mayor Coughlin stated that he had not heard anyone state that the City would start marching through the town and drive widows from their homes. Mr. Jahnke stated he realized this example was extreme. He clarified, in looking at the big picture, if the middle income houses are removed, there would be no housing available for a middle or low income resident. Mayor Coughlin stated this was a valid point to raise,however, he doubted that in the foreseeable future, Mounds View would have any deficit in the area of low to moderate priced housing. Mr. Jahnke stated that the City of Mounds View was currently 15 to 17 million dollars in debt. He stated,with the upcoming budget discussion,the City should review every department to determine how they can lower the deficit. He stated it seemed to him the departments were not looking into this matter. Mayor Coughlin stated the City was not running a deficit. He explained that he had debt,in the form of the mortgage, and he was meeting that obligation, and living in it as well. He stated he took on that debt with the knowledge that he was obtaining something in return. He stated it could be argued 8 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC whether or not previous bonding within particular sections of the budget were prudent or not, however,the City was meeting its obligations, and was not running a deficit. Mr. Jahnke noted that the State of Minnesota had been in debt, and they had heard their Representative explain how they got out of debt. He stated this should be the City's goal. Mayor Coughlin stated the State of Minnesota, in a funding authorization to provide Community Centers for every large community within the state,had undertaken a massive bonding in order to finance that project. He stated, at the same time it is claimed the state is running a surplus, it can also be argued they had added significantly to their bonding. He stated all levels of government had bonds, including the federal government. Mr. Jahnke stated his comment was in concern for awareness at the upcoming budget. Mr. Jahnke stated he had driven along Spring Lake Road on his scooter. He stated the road was beautiful, and the City had saved a million dollars on this project. He expressed his thanks to Council Member Stigney,Mary Malerick,Chair of the Streets Policy Committee,and Representative Haake for doing this. He stated he hoped they could convince the Director of Public Works to never put another cement curb in the City. Mayor Coughlin stated the Streets Policies Committee's recommendation was to leave these matters in the hands of the residents of the neighborhoods,to determine what they consider best. He stated, with that recommendation,the neighborhoods which wish to retain the trees, and keep the curbs out of their communities,would certainly have the opportunity. Jolyn Vigen, 5108 Sunnyside Road, stated she was a homeowner in the City of Mounds View. She stated she had purchased her home one year ago, and in December she had experienced a water main break. She stated the break was located in the area from the shut-off valve to the street. She stated that she immediately felt she should not be responsible for that repair,however,in speaking with the utility company, Council Member Thomason, and an attorney, and in looking at the statutes, she felt she had no recourse but to pay the bill. She stated the cost of the repair was $1,850. Mrs. Vigen stated the Saturday before the Fourth of July, she was in her residence, a farm in Thief River Falls, and in the process of moving to her home in Mounds View. She stated her son had come up with a U-haul, and informed her that water was again bubbling in the same site as it had in December. She stated she had not planned to be in Mounds View for two weeks, at that time. She stated Director of Public Works Ulrich had informed her that it would not be satisfactory to leave the situation as it was for two weeks. She stated Director of Public Works Ulrich indicated he would obtain bids and estimates on the current repair, and be in touch with her. She stated that in the ensuing month,the repair has not been done,the bids have not come in as expected, and she has had some time to reflect on the situation. She stated she was not certain Mounds View was such a good place to live at present, and they would have to convince her. Mrs.Vigen stated Kay's Mechanical,out of Elk River,did the repair in December,on a referral from a City employee. She stated, in trusting the City employee she went ahead with the repair by this contractor. She stated that she had since learned that Kay's Mechanical is not licensed in Mounds 9 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC View. She stated he does not have a general contractors license from the State Department of Commerce. She stated he did not apply for a digging permit. She stated that when he made the repair, City staff was present,however, did not inquire if he had obtained a permit. She stated that she had trusted City employees to send people who were reliable and responsible to do the repair. She stated, in retrospect, Kay's Mechanical indicated the entire line was bad and needed to be replaced, and that he had told her this at the time of the repair. She stated he did not. She stated if this had been and ethical contractor,the entire process could have been resolved originally,rather than resulting in the controversial situation they find themselves in at present. Mrs. Vigen stated another issue that has arisen in her mind, is the attitude towards solving this situation. She stated it does not appear to her that any long-term solution is being sought. She stated these homes were approximately 25 years old, and were only going to get older. She stated that she had wondered if the plan was to get rid of all the houses on that street. She stated hers was not the first repair, and as closely as she can ascertain, it was probably the twelfth on that block. She inquired how many more there would to be, and what the City would do about this situation. Mrs. Vigen stated that apparently,there is word out among plumbers in the Metropolitan area,that Mounds View was not the place to come and do work,that there is soil incompatibility with the type of tubing that is used,which leads to a breakdown of the pipes, and work can not be guaranteed or warranted. She stated there was also a high water table in Mounds View. She stated she was unable to obtain a private bid from any of the contractors she has contacted, and apparently the Director of Public Works Ulrich was having difficulty obtaining bids from contractors who are familiar with the area. Mayor Coughlin inquired what Mrs. Vigen would request of the City. Mrs. Vigen stated she was requesting that she not be held liable for this repair. She stated the Director of Public Works Ulrich had obtained two bids, one for $3,500, with a couple thousand dollars thrown in for water removal,and the other bid was$9,700. She suggested that there be some effort to consider this situation in the long term. She suggested that the City crew do this work, which would save the homeowners the dilemma and frustration of facing this situation. She stated this would provide that materials could be tested and tried to work with the soil conditions, the repairs would all be consistent and completed in a timely fashion. She explained that the water was currently running down the street. She stated, in the winter, that water rapidly turned to ice, and sanding crews had to be out, and it created a rather treacherous situation. Mayor Coughlin requested Director of Public Works Ulrich provide his input in this regard. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated he had become involved in this matter after the Public Works foreman had spoken with Mrs. Vigen regarding the leak that had surfaced. He stated he had spoken with her on the telephone and explained the City ordinance,whereby the homeowner is responsible for repairs from the water main to the house. He stated he had also explained why this provision had been established, and that the ordinance had been revised to require the City be responsible for the repair of any impervious surface. He stated Mrs.Vigen explained that she did not have any money for this repair. 10 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that any time a resident contacts them regarding this type of repair, whether it be sewer or water, staff provides them with a list of licensed contractors that is available through the Community Development Department. He stated he was not aware,and found it hard to understand it could be taken in this manner. He stated they have inspected good jobs and bad jobs, and they are aware of what the contractors actually do. He stated staff might provide three or four names, however, are not recommending or endorsing any particular contractor. He stated the fact that the repair was performed without a permit or license was unknown at the time. He stated that typically,they receive a telephone call from the contractor requesting they come out and inspect the job,and in many cases,with the water conditions such as they are in the high water table, this has to be done almost immediately. He stated they do require 24-hour notice, however, there are times when they go to the site and find out the contractor does not have a permit. He stated, in this event,they will stop the work, and make the contractor obtain a permit, and if not licensed, the contractor is required to pay the fees and obtain a license, as well. He stated there are times they inspect a job, as the ground is about to cave in, and if the if the contractor does not come back,the repair is already made and out of their control.. He explained they do not always have control over the situation,when they are required to complete the process in such an expedient manner. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated he had explained to Mrs. Vigen, that the City does have a clause whereby the homeowner can be specially assessed, and can petition and sign a waiver, whereby the repairs will be paid for by the City an assessed on the homeowner's tax bill. He stated this clause was in consideration of elderly persons, or those living on a fixed income, that are not able to make the repair and pay for that type of improvement. He stated Mrs. Vigen declined that option. He explained, if she did not want to make payments on an annual basis, and she was 65 years or older, the cost could be placed on a deferred assessment, as provided by the Municipal Code. He stated, in this event, the repair would be paid for at the time the house or property exchanged hands. He stated he explained that there would be interest accruable for that period of time. He stated Mrs. Vigen had declined this option as well. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated he had offered to obtain as many bids as possible for Mrs. Vigen, and that Tim Pittman was also working in this regard. He stated he had received bids,which Mrs.Vigen had not yet reviewed, as she has been out of town for a while. He stated he had talked to both of these contractors, who had determined this was a complicated repair. He explained the water main was down eleven to twelve feet. He stated that one contractor came in, of his own volition,to determine what the job would cost him, and bored holes which indicated the water table was at eight feet, and the entire repair will have to be de-watered. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated there was a substantial sugar maple tree, directly across the street, which would be lost in the course of the repair. He stated they had spoken to that property owner and stated they would replace the tree,which is located in the boulevard,however,happens to be in the wrong place. He stated,in his opinion,they have done as much as they can to assist Mrs. Vigen in this situation. He stated he did not believe Mounds View had soil conditions that are incompatible to any types of irons. He stated there were some locations,particularly along county roads,which have"hot soils"which have corroded and eaten through the pipe. He stated they have between three to five of these surface breaks,per year, sometimes more. He stated that a majority of the defects are in the workmanship. He stated that if there were imperfections in the workmanship and the flange was not made property,throughout the years,the water pressure will continue to wear 11 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC a spot in the flange, which starts as a small pinhole in the flange, and it continues to expand. He stated, for the most part,Mounds View has sandy soils, and they have not had many problems in this regard. He stated these situations were the reason the ordinance was revised to provide repair paid for by the City for any impervious surface repair. Mayor Coughlin clarified it was the present City Code, that the homeowner is responsible for the service coming off the main and to the house. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this was correct, and added that the homeowner is also responsible for all of the appendages between those points, for water and sewer lines alike. Council Member Marty inquired regarding the definition of"hot soils." Director of Public Works Ulrich explained this represented an organic soil. Mayor Coughlin added it was a soil that would affect the pH factor, relative to the metal in the ground. Mrs. Vigen stated, in her understanding of the Code, the homeowner was not responsible to the main,but to the street. She stated that she is being asked to pay for the repairs across the street. She stated is seems to her that the addition of$9,700 to the cost of her home would never be recovered. She stated she was a widow and,in regard to the waiver offered in light of her senior citizenship,she would be paying twice for that repair. She stated that 6.5 percent interest on$9,700 is $7,205, and with that,the principal is not even impacted. She stated she did not think this would be recovered at the time the house was sold. She stated she could only appeal to the Council's sense of fairness and equity in this matter. She stated this was not the first problem. She stated the first time this occurred she decided to follow the guidance of Council Member Thomason, and what she had read in the Charter. She stated she believed something else was being referenced in regard to her responsibility to the water main. She stated she would have to go back and re-read the Charter. Angela Vigen, 5108 Sunnyside Road, stated she was Mrs. Vigen's daughter. She stated, in December, a City worker had informed her that she and her mother were responsible for the repair from the curb to the house. She stated that being required to go across the street adds more to the cost of the repair. Mayor Coughlin requested Director of Public Works Ulrich confirm for the Council the present Code, which indicates from the main to the residence. Director of Public Work Ulrich stated this was correct, as set forth in Section 906.08. Mayor Coughlin stated that it was not the City's responsibility to find a contractor or to deem whether or not they are ethical, only that they are in keeping with the Code. He stated it is incumbent upon any resident with a problem concerning a contractor,to do research with the Better Business Bureau,Department of Commerce and other similar agencies,in dealing with these people. Mayor Coughlin stated there is no conspiracy to get rid of houses or to run people out of the City. He stated if there were,it was a conspiracy hatched twenty years ago when the developers ran these lines, and it would be their conspiracy, not the City's. He stated they would not want to tie up the City work crews with situations like this. He stated the City crews had enough work to carry out in regard to the maintenance of City streets and the like. He stated, in his recollection of the Code, if the City goes any farther than to allow this to be put on a deferred tax basis,it would set a precedent. 12 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC He explained for example,that the next time his sewer line gave way,he would ask the City to come in and pay for that. He stated they had just heard a resident request the Council to be very prudent with its budget. He stated, in light of this, to start intervening with what is deemed by the Code to be a residential situation,would highly impact the budget at some level. He stated he did not think it appropriate for the City to underwrite these situations. He stated he agreed that this was a lot of money, and a horrible situation to have to face,however,it was no different than if the transmission went out on your car. He stated the City does not have the authority or responsibility to deal with private property.. City Attorney Riggs stated that Director of Public Works Ulrich's statement was correct, and the Code does indicate the homeowner is responsible for the line between the water main, and the structure located on the property. Mayor Coughlin stated in light of the time,he would request further discussion of the matter be held privately between Mrs. Vigen and staff. He stated with the consent of the Council he would recommend they maintain present City policy, and request that staff attempt to accommodate the financial issues, as best they can. He requested that staff additionally explore any possible county or state resources that might be available to assist Mrs. Vigen in this regard. City Administrator Whiting offered to meet with Mrs.Vigen and Director of Public Works Director Ulrich,to discuss options that may assist in making the situation less painful for Mrs. Vigen, at her convenience. Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Riggs if the seller of the house had some responsibility, as this is a newly purchased residence. City Attorney Riggs stated this was highly possible, depending upon the contract entered into. He stated that many times private real estate transactions include provisions indicating that the property is accepted"as is".He stated these concerns were out of the purview of the Council, however,this would be worthwhile for Mrs. Vigen to investigate, in terms of the contract and any warranties provided to her. He stated this might provide an avenue by which to recover the costs of the repair. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that prior Friday, they had a repair very similar to this on Silver Lake Road, which had been inspected by the Public Works Department. He stated, at that time,they invited this contractor to stop by Mrs. Vigen's property and provide a bid for the repair, in light of the difficulties Mrs. Vigen was experiencing in locating a contractor. He stated he was currently awaiting this information. He stated they should attempt to complete this repair as soon as possible, as the line has been leaking for three weeks. He stated the hole is getting bigger, and they are possibly losing thousands of gallons per day. Mayor Coughlin expressed his appreciation to Director of Public Works Ulrich for going above and beyond what was required of him, in his efforts to coordinate and obtain bids for Mrs. Vigen. He added that these matters were out of the purview of his job. He stated he appreciated his going the extra mile to assist this resident. There were no further requests or comments from the floor. 13 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Senator Steve Novak Legislative Wrap Up. Senator Novak stated he appreciated the invitation to come before the Council. He stated he attempted to do this every year at the end of the Session, to provide a review of the Legislative Session, and to answer any questions the Council or anyone else might have regarding the results of the session in relation to state and local issues. Senator Novak reported that the state of the state is"pretty darn good."He added this comes from someone who has watched state budgets come and go for many years. He stated this was based upon the traditional barometers utilized to gauge the state's economy, the budget, the tax policy, and so forth. He stated that he does not know of a time that was better,and that this was part of a three-year trend in that direction. Senator Novak stated most Minnesotans, depending upon where they work, and how they receive their paychecks, had probably noticed a change in their withholding tables. He stated this reflects the permanent tax cut, which probably received less discussion than the rebate, however, has the more significant impact going forward over time,because it is permanent. He stated all three rates in the income tax system of the state were cut significantly, and the result of that is permanent tax relief. Senator Novak stated, within the next week to ten days, the question he had heard since last fall, regarding when the rebate check will arrive,will finally be answered. He stated this would happen sometime before the end of the month of August. He stated this was always the schedule of the rebate, although it had become somewhat confusing at times. He stated this matter is governed by the practical application of revenue department computers, than it is by any grand scheme or a particular campaign promise. He stated the rebate represents the same amount of money as the permanent tax cut,which is approximately 1.2 billion dollars. He stated the difference is significant in that the rebate is one-time money coming in, and one-time money going out in the form of a rebate. He stated this is the third rebate within the last three years. He stated the first two rebates were related to the property tax, and this rebate is related to sales and income tax tables. He stated it would be significant by anybody's measurement. He stated average rebates will be in the range of$700 to $1,500, depending upon the size of family, expenditures, and so forth. He stated some could be as low as$500 and some could be as high as $5,000,however, on average across the state, for a couple of million taxpayers it will be approximately $1,000. Senator Novak stated approximately 1.2 billion dollars in permanent expenditures has been made in the area of K-12 education funding. He stated the Mounds View School District 621,will benefit from this significantly, as will all school districts in the state on the(perfutifully?) formula which is the uniform payment by the state to school districts throughout Minnesota. He stated there were a variety of special factors in the formula, based upon the way school districts are constituted, and how their tax base is structured. He stated that Mounds View would also benefit from this. 14 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Senator Novak stated the Legislature had gone into this year facing a significant deficit, and will come out of the year essentially in balance. He stated they are moving forward, which is a very positive thing. Senator Novak reported he was involved directly in a number of issues that affected the local area, and one of these has statewide significance. He stated it was a rare opportunity to be involved in what he would call a"Mega-Project,"which relates to the significant expansion of Medtronic in the neighboring community of Fridley, which would dominate the north suburban skyline for the next generation. He stated this expansion would lead directly to the doubling of employment in Minnesota by Medtronic of 4-8,000 jobs. He stated the average wages would be $55,000 per job. He stated this was significant hi-tech growth, presented by a local company, which they are all familiar with, that has grown to worldwide stature. He stated Medtronic had options to relocate, however, chose to stay, not only in Minnesota,but also in the northern suburbs. He stated it took several changes in law to put this package together. He stated this involved the extension of the existing TIF Districts in Fridley, as well as special changes in law related to the environment in regard to the impact upon Moore Lake. He stated, additionally, there were changes in law related to the Department of Transportation and freeway exit and entry ramps, and a coordinated effort in conjunction with the Ventura Administration, the Republican House and the Democratic Senate. He stated this represented the best of what can happen with combinations of political philosophies all understanding the importance of making some changes to allow a major project to go forward. He stated that many will benefit from this directly,however,it is clearly a project of the scope of half a dozen projects he could recall in 25 years with the state,in terms of public policy combining with the private sector to go forward. Senator Novak stated they would see some increases in local government aid formulas in terms of the state's relationship to all levels of local governments; cities, counties and schools, and a variety of special factors related to the metropolitan area.He stated this was a significant Legislative Session by any historical standard, and one that all Minnesotans can feel good about. He stated all Minnesotans will benefit from personally, directly, and collectively, in terms of the communities across the state, as well as in regard to state public policy, in terms of continuing a coordinated bi- partisan, now tri-partisan effort to position Minnesota's economy for the 21st Century. Mayor Coughlin Marty stated he had never met Senator Novak, however,would like to express his personal thanks and appreciation to the Senator for his assistance with the airport issue, which is something that is near and dear to the hearts of many of the residents of Mounds View. Senator Novak stated he appreciated Council Member Marty's comment very much. He added that he was going to bring this matter up,if no one else did,and begin by thanking Mayor Coughlin,City staff, and particularly City Administrator Whiting and others he had worked with on this issue for many years. He stated they had applied themselves very constructively to the matter. He stated he had worked with Mayor Coughlin and various delegations of people from Mounds View, as well as Representative Haake from Mounds View on this issue, as he had with previous House members of both political parties. Senator Novak stated this was a bi-partisan issue, and an issue of real interest and concern to the community. He stated it continues to amaze him how difficult it is to "get their arms around this," and come to a final conclusion, because over the years, they have had significant successes that 15 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC indicated they had finally resolved the matter.. He stated that almost twenty years prior, Holman Field in St. Paul, and the military,had attempted to move the helicopter base to the area. He stated they all united and worked very hard with the National Guard and others who went to Washington, and gained permanent resolution to that issue. He stated he thought they were all glad that this change did not take place. He stated that 12 to 15 years prior, they were faced with the same issue they are currently addressing,which was the issue of noise and flight patterns. He stated, after years of negotiations, they were successful in moving the runway a mile north, and this appeared to alleviate the problem at that time. He stated the issue is back, due to a variety of reasons, which include the consolidation of metropolitan agencies. He explained that the Metropolitan Airport Commission is no longer totally independent, and the Metropolitan Council has also been intervening to some degree. He added that the review of the Metropolitan plans,which take place automatically every ten years, has brought some of these issues back. Senator Novak stated he believed they had a lot of good people that were negotiating in good faith. He complimented the Mayor,the Council and the staff for their hard work on this issue. He stated he has been working hard on it,and hoping they come to a resolution that is satisfactory to everyone. He stated they did have legislation introduced,which was passed through the committees, and had attempted to negotiate directly with the Metropolitan Airport Commission regarding the issue. He stated it has been frustrating at times,however,they are staying with it, and he hopes they will come to an agreement that will satisfy everyone involved. Mayor Coughlin expressed his thanks to Senator Novak for handling himself with calm and grace, in the midst of the relatively tense discussion. He stated the issues involved are very passionate on all sides. He stated he was very impressed and proud to have the opportunity to sit next to the Senator in the Committee meeting, and testify to his bill. He stated he had also had the opportunity to discuss the issue privately in the Senator's office, and attempt to negotiate a compromise to prevent the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars to continue to fight this year after year. He reiterated his thanks and appreciation to Senator Novak for his efforts, adding it was a valiant effort on his part, and that he hoped, during the next session, they could come to an equitable resolution Senator Novak stated he appreciated those comments,noting that these were complicated issues,and life was not as simple in the Legislature as some people might think. He stated everyone has a point of view on everything these days, and an open forum in which to explain and describe it. He stated working through all of that is not always simple,however,he thought they have a lot of the facts and history on their side, and was hoping that in the end, they will find a way to resolve the issue in a manner acceptable to the public. Council Member Stigney expressed his personal thanks and appreciation to Senator Novak for the efforts he had made on their behalf with the airport issue, and hoped he would continue this during the next Legislative Session as well. Mayor Coughlin inquired regarding the status of the sales tax on City purchases. Senator Novak stated that at the moment,it was status quo. He stated that over the years he has served on the Tax Committee, and there have been very few years that he did not vote for the tax bill. He stated one of these was the year that provision was included in the tax bill. He stated it was part of a deal that was supposed to bring other revenues, in the form of dedicated sales tax revenues and local aid to 16 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC the cities. He stated that deal was not honored for more than a year, and in exchange for that they have ended up with the sales tax on city purchases, which, in his opinion, is a tax on a tax. He stated, as will many things in government, once it occurs, it seems to be very difficult to change. He stated it is placed on the books as an expenditure, and it appears to be in tens of millions of dollars,and the process of eliminating this particular provision is not so glamorous,nor does it strike so close to home, as a rebate does. He stated it has become somewhat of a philosophical struggle, and an ongoing issue,which does come up publicly in the Committee discussion. He stated people do attempt to address it,but they have not been successful in changing it at this point in time. He stated the direct answer to Mayor Coughlin's question is that the tax on city purchases is still there, and still being debated, however, it is yet to be resolved. Mayor Coughlin clarified for the residents that this is a provision that requires cities to pay sales tax on purchases. He stated the residents are taxed to fund the City, and out of those funds purchases are made,upon which a state tax is applied. He stated there has been some effort to eliminate that tax on city purchases,which would essentially reduce the cost of local government. Senator Novak stated that it had occurred to him that they have an entire generation of Legislators who have never had to vote for a tax increase. He stated, however, about ten years ago they were in one of the cycles where the state was in deficit. He stated it took about a decade to recover from the depths of the recession, and the budgetary crisis in Minnesota during the early 1980's. He stated that at this time, the state completely lost its credit rating and at one point did not have enough money to pay its employees. He stated, out of all this, from the Perpich administration and through the Carlson administration, and Legislatures of both parties, the have gradually developed a fiscal strategy and a program that has led to not only regaining the credit rating,but a triple A credit rating. He stated this has led to the tax cuts and other changes that most people view to be very positive. However, at that period of time,there were a number of things done to raise money to help stop the "bleeding"at the state level, and the cities paid the price on that particular issue. He stated he agreed that this should be corrected. City Administrator Whiting stated that he was familiar with other City Managers and Council Members who, upon reviewing these activities, were concerned with the anti-city attitude that appears to have developed within the Legislature.He inquired if Senator Novak would speak to this issue. Senator Novak stated that this was not his personal view and that he thought local and municipal government was probably the most effective government, and"the best buy for the buck, with the exception of the legislature." He stated,however, he had heard this expressed by others including Legislators. He stated that over a continuum of 10 to 20 years,going back particularly to the Perpich years,there had been some changes in law. He stated one of these was changes was that the salaries of all local government officials would be frozen at a level no higher than the governor's salary. He stated this seemed to particularly pose a problem for school districts and the hiring of school superintendents, and the districts became pretty creative in working around this. Senator Novak stated what many people do not seem to understand about the state budget,is exactly where the state dollars are spent. He stated he thought there was a perception on a segment of the public, that the vast majority of state dollars collected in state income taxes are spent to pay the 17 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC salaries of state employees performing state functions, for example, the Department of Natural Resources official, the Department of Transportation highway worker, or the Health and Human Services social worker. He stated that the reality of this is over the last 25 years the percentage of the state budget that is actually spent on the salaries and benefits of state employees has shrunk significantly as a percentage of the state budget, and at present is approximately 12 percent. Senator Novak stated the vast majority of state dollars that are collected and spent, are spent on formulas that direct money back to local governments, principally school districts, counties, and cities. He stated the rest of the dollars that generally make up the budgets of local governments are those levied locally through the property tax. He stated that combination of these state general fund dollars and local property tax dollars, along with fees, make up the budgets of local government. He stated, in some people's view,the real growth in government,highly opposes in the 1980's and 1990's,was at the local level,not the state level,and yet,much of the"heat"for this was being taken at the state level. Senator Novak stated this began to play out in campaigns, largely inaccurate, in terms of people defending themselves against attacks on"big government" and what that really meant, and where the growth of government really was. He stated that most objective studies of that period of time indicated there was substantial growth in the number of employees at local levels of government, and not significant growth in the numbers of actual state employees. He stated this data for that comes from the United States Department of Labor and various other national collecting points. He stated he thought, out of that data, came attention that developed particularly with the first state budget crises. Senator Novak stated that the state's word had always been good,in terms of its relationship to local government, and oftentimes the state's promises were high, however, were kept. He noted the increase in state aid to public schools by 20 percent in the 1970's. He stated this was part of the Minnesota Miracle,when they shifted from property tax to income tax and were later criticized for big budget surpluses. He stated that property taxes were relatively low, and the state was pumping money into local governments at significant rates. Senator Novak stated this all changed radically in the 1980's,when there was a reaction against the income tax, which was really priming the pump. He stated, however, people valued how these dollars were spent through state budgets, and that had to be restricted also. He stated that out of a combination of these, came some natural tensions between different levels of governments, and the interactions between governmental units. He stated he believed this was how this happened, as a transition in terms of a historical period of time, and relationships of one level of government to another. Senator Novak stated he thought this situation was getting better, and hoped that continues. He stated that all local levels of government are creatures of state government, and ideally all here to serve the same people. He stated they have different functions, but they all represent the same collective group of people in different combinations of jurisdictions. He stated their ability to coordinate their efforts, and get the best"bang for the buck,"and deliver the most effective services for the least amount of money is what they all should be there to do. He stated he believed they all attempt to do this, however, the different philosophies and approaches on how they direct their 18 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC efforts and sometimes result in conflict,which is why there are elections. He stated he thought this sentiment does exist,however,has lessened from its high point, and hopes they are moving forward in a positive way. Council Member Thomason stated she would echo Council Member Marty and Council Member Stigney's praises for Senator Novak's efforts in working with them on the Airport Legislation. She stated she looked forward to his continued effort. Senator Novak stated he appreciated the opportunity to work with the City of Mounds View. He stated he presently represented five different cities in the northern suburbs, and continued to be very proud of the north suburban area, and its ranking with the rest of the state. He stated that one of the real indicators of how well they were doing,was the level of voter participation. He stated they had an exceptional situation the prior year,with the election of Governor Ventura bringing out many new voters. He stated, historically, in the northern suburbs, the percentage of voters is extraordinarily high in comparison to the rest of the state. He stated, in addition, this area has polled its citizens to obtain their views regarding local governments, and the quality of life that they enjoy. He stated consistently, across the north suburban area, the people have indicated they have a high quality of life, and feel very well served by their different levels of government. Senator Novak stated he thought they should continue to work hard together, have their partisan battles if necessary,which he believes are very small in comparison to a much wider array of issues that they work on collectively in a bi-partisan manner. He stated if there is any message to be drawn from the last election, it is that people want government to get things done. He stated they wanted practical solutions to problems, a little less rhetoric, and a lot more action. He stated the more they could work together, the better off they would be. Mayor Coughlin reiterated his thanks to Senator Novak for taking time out of his busy schedule to come before the Council. He stated it had been an honor to work with him and he looked forward to working with him in the future. Senator Novak stated he was more than happy to come to Mounds View to report. He stated he had been doing this for many years, and he enjoyed-it. B. Resolution No. 5356 Regarding Council Approval to Participate as a member of the Anoka County-Blaine Airport Advisory Commission By-Laws and Call for Board Applicants. Mayor Coughlin stated this item had been discussed at the Council Work Session. He stated the Council had been provided a copy of the by-laws, and this resolution essentially approved them as presented, and authorizes staff to post in the newspaper a call for applicants of anyone who is interested in applying to the Commission. He stated staff would generate an application form. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No. 5356, a Resolution Approving the City of Mounds View's Participation as a Representative Member of the Newly Formed Anoka County-Blaine Airport Advisory Commission and Authorization to Seek Applicants for Appointment to the Commission. 19 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty inquired if they could waive the reading of this resolution. Mayor Coughlin requested that all further resolutions before the Council that evening, have their readings waived,unless specifically requested otherwise by the Council. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Thomason. To Waive the Readings of All Further Resolutions Before the Council that Evening,Unless Specifically Requested by the Council. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. C. Right of Way Ordinance No. 635, Continuation of Second Reading. This Item was withdrawn at the request of the City Administrator. D. Consideration of Resolution No. 5357, Adopting Streets Committee Recommendations for Future Reconstruction projects. Mayor Coughlin stated that Mary Malerick, Chair of the Streets Policies Committee was present, and any questions regarding this issue could be directed to her. Mary Malerick, Chair of the Streets Policies Committee, stated she would like to reiterate her support for the recommendations. She stated that the recommendations do not provide a new agenda for road reconstruction,rather they broaden the existing agenda. She stated that Director of Public Works Ulrich and the previous Council were limited in regard to what they could offer the residents, and these recommendations provided more options, and made the entire process much smoother. Mayor Coughlin requested, with the consent of the motioner and seconder, to add as a recommendation or specify in these policies,that in the discussion of the 18-36 months of discussion on a project prior to it officially coming before the Council for action,that in addition to Best Water Management Practices and others, an explanation of MSA funding and its options, and potential variances be included. Council Member Marty stated he would agree to this. Council Member Stigney stated he would agree to this. Chair Malerick stated she thought this would be a good addition. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Resolution No. 5357, a Resolution Adopting the Streets Committee Recommendations for Future Reconstruction Projects, and to Add as a Recommendation or Specify in These Policies that In the Discussion of the 18-36 Months of Discussion on a Project Prior to It Officially Coming Before the Council for Action,that In Addition to Best Water Management Practices and Others, an Explanation of MSA Funding and Its Options and Potential Variances Be Included, as Amended. 20 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Quick) Motion carried. E. Resolution No. 5355, Approving/Denying Action for the Pleasant View Drive/TH 10 Signal Survey. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this discussion was in consideration of Resolution 5355, a resolution approving the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Pleasant View Drive, and Ramsey County Road 10. He stated this item was discussed at the last Council meeting, and a survey had been sent out to the residents inquiring if they were in favor of this traffic signal. He stated the results of the survey indicated 29 in favor, and 16 opposed. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff had contacted the City Administrator of Spring Lake Park,who indicated the plans had not changed from the previously drawn plans. He stated there was a plan presently before the Council, and described each area, and what it represented. He stated staff had one concern in regard to this proposal, which was the location of the island on Pleasant View Drive, and southbound traffic directed toward the intersection. He stated the concern was in regard to whether or not there was enough room between the north and south or east and west portion of the road, or if the traffic was intended to go around that island. He stated staff would require additional clarification of this matter. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the funding of this project was approximately 12.5 percent, and it was estimated that it would cost the City of Mounds View approximately $16,500 for their participation in the traffic signal only. He stated there was some right-of-way purchase, and some additional bituminous in the geometry of the intersection and the design. He stated,when he was at the meeting he had indicated if the city of Spring Lake Park wanted this,they should provide for the cost, and if the City of Mounds View should provide for the cost of traffic signal only. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that this resolution does support and approve the construction of that traffic signal. He stated it also identifies the funding source of Mounds View's MSA account. Council Member Marty stated the survey indicates two to one residents in favor of the traffic signal, and he would base his determination on this information. Mayor Coughlin stated, with respect for the residents input, he lived just one street from the proposed site,he tends to drive to Red Oak Drive when going south on County Road 10, and meets up with the signal at that location in order to access County Road 10.He stated, in recognition of his own nature,he would probably attempt to cut through Pleasant View Drive, a less traveled roadway, in order to speed his travel to County Road 10,if he were heading eastbound on that road. He stated he had significant concerns regarding traffic flow, and the impact to that particular neighborhood, and therefore,would be opposing this measure. He added that he believed there were other options that could be considered,which would accommodate the same resolution of problems. Council Member Stigney stated he believed this would assist in access to County Road 10, and some of the benefit to Mounds View would be in the form of improved access from the Fire Station. He stated some question was raised regarding moving it further to the west,however,he thought it was too close to the other intersection in that area. He stated that he was in favor of the proposal. 21 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Council Member Quick stated there were also considerable changes further up the road,that would alleviate some of the problems with Sunset Drive. He stated the proposal would also change some of the flow in and around the trailer court. He stated that overall,this would improve the situation on County Road 10. He stated that the current reception to this proposal was 100 percent more in favor than was indicated previously. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that a more detailed plan was available for the Council's review. He stated the reason this proposal was presently at this stage, was that they had received some Hazard Reduction money that had been applied for from the Department of Transportation, and this project was finally coming to the drawing board, and appears it will be constructed in 2000. He stated it was correct that the Anoka County Road, or Sunset,will no longer access County Road 10, and will be somewhat of a frontage road for the businesses along the highway, and back through the trailer court. He stated this would involve the vacation of some land in that area, and will create another access to Pleasant View Drive on the south side. Council Member Stigney noted an error in the third paragraph of the resolution which states "the City will utilized," and requested a correction to indicate"the City will utilize." Council Member Thomason stated that she travels that stretch of road on a daily basis. She stated she agreed the proposal would help with the Fire Station access. She stated,however, further down the line, there is so much congestion at the intersection of Sunset Drive, she believed it was "an accident waiting to happen." She stated she did not see how this would help the matter, and was not in favor of utilizing the City's MSA funds for the proposal. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution No. 5355, a Resolution Supporting and Approving the Construction of a Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Pleasant View Drive and Ramsey County Road 10. Ayes—3 Nays—2 (Coughlin, Thomason) Motion carried. F. Request to reconsider Resolution 5349, a Resolution approved on July 26, 1999, to allow for an automobile rental facility to operate at 2975 Highway 10. Planning Associate Ericson stated that this was a late addition to the Agenda, and a copy of the Staff Report had been provided for Council's consideration. He stated, at the City Council meeting on July 26,the Council approved a conditional use permit for Thrifty Car Rental to operate a car rental facility at 2975 Highway 10. He stated, at that meeting, a stipulation had been added to the resolution,which prohibits panel trucks, recreational vehicles and trailers from being parked upon the lot. He stated the applicant,who was not present at the meeting was requesting reconsideration of this stipulation. Ericson stated that staff consulted with the City Attorney, who indicated if it were the Council's desire to reconsider this,or to at least reconsider the resolution,not necessarily to drop the provision, but to simply reconsider this, it would require a public hearing. He stated the Council has two options. One is to deny the applicant's request for an amendment to the resolution, and the other is to move to reconsider the matter, and direct staff to set the required public hearing dates, mail 22 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC notification to the residents, and send the notice for publication to the newspaper. He stated, if the Council desires to take the second option, staff would request the applicant be responsible for the costs involved, and to pay that amount in advance. Ericson stated that the applicant was present. He stated he had provided pictures of the type of vehicles the applicant was proposing. Council Member Marty stated the resolution includes the stipulation prohibits panel trucks, recreational vehicles, and trailers. He inquired if the applicant was proposing to rent the panel trucks, as represented in the pictures the Council was provided. Dave Besonen, representative of Thrifty Car Rental, stated their business does not consist of the rental of recreational vehicles or trailers, and the concern was in regard to panel trucks. He inquired regarding the definition of panel trucks. He stated they had provided pictures of what they called "box trucks,"which are not the 24-foot trucks that are rented by Rider and U-Haul, and no special license is required to drive them. He stated this was the largest vehicle their facility rents. He stated they rent 10-foot cargo vans,which are approximately one half the size of the vehicles represented in the pictures. He stated they also rent 15 and 12-passenger vans,which have the same wheelbase as the 10-foot cargo vans. Mr. Besonen stated he believed the main concern was in regard to the 15-foot box trucks. He stated their business has several offices in the Twin Cities area, and these vehicles are moving constantly. He stated that one might be parked on the lot for a day or two. He stated they might have two on the lot one day, and none for a week straight. Mayor Coughlin stated procedurally, to reconsider a vote, a motion and second would be required of the individuals previously voting in favor of the resolution. He noted it was a unanimous vote of the Council at that point, and any member of the Council could move to reconsider. Council Member Stigney stated he would move to deny an amendment to Resolution 5349. Council Member Marty inquired if this would allow them to have rental vehicles,just not the box trucks. Council Member Stigney clarified the only thing that would not be allowed would be panel trucks,recreational vehicles, and trailers. Council Member Stigney stated that he was attempting to prevent the situation at the Rent-All facility,where they have Rider trucks,panel or U-Haul trucks for rent. He stated to start that on the other side of the City was not what he was interested in. He stated he had seen the trucks and the extended vans. He noted he did not prohibit the extended vans, although he does not particularly approve of these either. However, the panel trucks were a stipulation that he brought forth. He stated he did not mind the rental of vehicles at the location, but the rental of panel trucks was something he opposed. Mr.Besonen stated he had noticed Steve's Appliance, located one block away from their business, presently had five 15-foot box trucks on their lot. He stated he did not know if the concern was in regard to the rental of these vehicles, or having them sit at the location. He stated these vehicles 23 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC would help the residents of Mounds View and the surrounding areas with their moving needs. He stated it was difficult to locate box trucks for this purpose at the end of the month.. Mayor Coughlin stated he saw this as an important function of this particular business, and he would not be opposed to reconsidering the matter, simply to allow the business to maximize its effectiveness in the community, and to refrain from micro-managing a particular business. He stated that all of the City Codes and regulations do this to some degree,however,he will be opposed to the motion to deny. Council Member Stigney stated that Steve's Appliance had been at their location for many years, and it was within a different zoning district than the applicant's business. He stated the applicant had requested a conditional use permit, which provides for stipulations. He stated that he had requested this stipulation because he did not think it would be desirable to have the panel trucks along the Highway 10 Corridor. He reiterated he had no objection to the car rental business,but the truck rental business was not something he would support. Council Member Marty inquired regarding the size of the lot, and how many vehicles would be parked on the lot. Mr. Besonen stated the lot was approximately 1.6 acres, and the maximum number of vehicles on the lot would be 23. He stated he was the manager of the business, and was not in the business of having the vehicles sitting on the lot. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Deny Reconsideration of Resolution 5349. Ayes—3 Nays—2 (Coughlin, Quick) Motion carried. G. Consideration of Resolution No. 5359 Accepting Jurisdictional Transfer of Ramsey County Road I. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated before the Council was Resolution 5359, a resolution accepting jurisdictional transfer of Ramsey County Road I from West County Line to Silver Lake Rod from Ramsey County. He stated this road is currently being recycled and overlaid. He stated, when this project is completed,it would complete the jurisdictional transfer,pursuant to legislative action in 1991. He stated this resolution would transfer the authority of that road from Ramsey County to the City of Mounds View. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the resolution indicates that through legislation,the cities are allowed to take the additional turnback mileage and add it to their MSA system,above the 20 percent they are currently allotted, and that this is somewhat of a unique situation. He stated the resolution that follows this would revoke the current MSA status, and the road would be added back as a turnback. He stated this matter was before Council during the Spring Lake Road/County Road I, informational meetings, and was not acted upon at that time. He explained that the reason for this resolution is to accept this as a turnback, and use the existing .6 mileage somewhere else in the system, should it be applicable and warranted. He stated this would allow a window of opportunity in the future, should the City choose to utilize that designation and maximize the allotment. He 24 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC stated,if they do not,they will lose the turnback option, and it will stay an MSA road. He noted that staff had contacted the state in regard to this, and the state had indicated this was allowed. Council Member Marty inquired if the road has to be redone in the next 20 to 25 years, and they keep the MSA funding, could the state come in and impose whatever regulations or stipulations were in place at the time, or could the MSA be declined.. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated there are currently three standards for MSA, which are 26, 32, and 38 feet wide, with parking restrictions on some. He stated, in his understanding, through discussions with the City Engineer, as long as they do not request any MSA funds on an MSA road for any type of improvement,there is no penalty. He stated they will utilize general fund dollars or assessment dollars,before anything will be done with that road again. He stated that as long they are not requesting state aid funds, and submitting a plan for any type of overlay or reconstruction, they would not be required to do any state project on that road. Mayor Coughlin stated the stipulation he had added to the Street Policies Committee recommendations,was to insure this entire process also be discussed in the 18 to 36 month period of discussion of the matter prior to Council's action. He stated this was to provide an understanding of the particular standards and the implications of those at that time. Mayor Coughlin stated, in light of its relativity to the current discussion, and with consent of the Council, he would request Director of Public Works Ulrich also address Resolution 5192, a resolution revoking Municipal State Aid Street Status, the next item on the present agenda. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated he was aware this matter had not been previously acted upon, and therefore reviewed the file from the previous proposal. He stated he had in his research he had encountered Resolution 5110,which was adopted by the Council on April 28, 1997, in conjunction with the tumback on Spring Lake Road. He stated this was the same procedure the Council was presently considering. He stated when the County turns a road back to them,they adopt a resolution accepting the turnback, and simultaneously adopt a resolution to establish an MSA street, and the tumback thereof,pursuant to the turnback language. He stated,throughout the 18 to 20 months they have been going through this process, staff and the consultants had forgotten about this. He stated in lieu of requesting certification of the system, they did not know if Council would like to add the two roads to the MSA system, knowing certain current standards would not be met during the certification process. He stated that would prolong the certification process. He stated, in staff's opinion,there are other MSA streets in the City that would not meet the certification standards, and would have to be upgraded to some extent in the future so the requirement can be met. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated they are presently receiving approximately$330,000 in state aid, of which some $80,000 is given to the City in maintenance checks to be utilized on the MSA streets, as well as where the City deems necessary. He stated the portion of construction funds they would be allowed to utilize is only a percentage of the current$230,000 they would receive if they were to have the total system certified. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated Resolution 5110,had been sent to MNdot and was accepted, however,the MSA system has other requirements whereby municipal state aid,county state aid, and 25 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC state highways that make up the system must all be interconnected. He stated the holding point on this interconnection from the Commissioner's standpoint,was that a section of this road was missing from state designation, and that is Spring Lake Road, a section from Hillview to Trunk Highway 10. He stated the city of Spring Lake Park owns this section as a turnback. He stated there were issues beyond that, and that Spring Lake Park wanted to hold off on designating that portion of the road MSA, until some other matters were resolved, and those appeared to be resolved at this time. He stated he had requested they submit this section of Spring Lake Road for state aid approval, and that the MSA status would then be forwarded to their City Council. Mary Malerick requested they do not designate the roads MSA. She stated that when she was a member of the Streets Policies Committee,they looked at different ways the City could pay for road reconstruction,and that was when they discovered the certification process. She stated that what this means is that when all of the MSA roads are up to standard, the City can begin to utilize some of those funds for off-system roads for reconstruction. She stated she had contacted MSA that date, and they had indicated, if the system had been certified the prior year,they could be using$200,000 this, and every year,off-system. She stated if Spring Lake Road is designated as an MSA road,they would be locking themselves out of the money for off-system,simply because it does not meet MSA standards. She stated certification means all the roads are brought up to standard. She stated she did not believe they would grant a variance for the 1.49-mile stretch of road. She requested the Council consider this. She stated she would like to see the City leave all their options open, and be able to utilize the money that is available to them in the future. Council Member Stigney stated he had some questions at the last Work Session, and it was his understanding that there is some confusion with the some of the residents who seem to think,if they designate this road MSA,they must install curbs, gutters and sidewalks. He stated even during the reconstruction period, possibly 25 years from now, it would still not require curb, gutter, and sidewalk. He stated it would be strictly up to the residents at that time, to determine what funding source they chose to utilize, and if they chose to use MSA funds for the reconstruction at that time, it would have to meet the current standard. Council Member Stigney stated another matter for consideration was the monies coming in for this segment of road,which is currently a construction allotment of$18,980 per year. He stated, over a period of 25 years,this would accrue to an amount of$474,500. He stated there was an additional $5,700 per year for maintenance that could be used anywhere in the City,not only the MSA roads, and that amount would accrue to $142,500 over the same period of time. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this was a correct and complete summary of the matter. He stated it would be very similar to the situation at Groveland Road, which is an MSA street, and is not up to standard because it does not have current curb and gutter. He stated if they went into Groveland Road, and did a recycle and overlay, knowing they would not be granted MSA funds, they would not request them,and would pay for this from somewhere within the existing City funds. He stated the sidewalk plan had been put in place by the Sidewalk Task Force, and outlined numerous areas they identified location in the City where sidewalks or trails should be placed and that was what they had based this on. He stated that sidewalks and trails are MSA qualified, and no one in the City is assessed for these. He stated that is why they are particularly identified in the MSA streets. He stated many of the MSA streets segment the City in somewhat logical 26 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC designations, so that the sidewalks would have some trail use and logic to them, and some do not. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated another issue in the near future,was Groveland Road, Red Oak Drive and Highway 10, all possibly state aid roads, and all in close proximity to each other. He stated the discussion was in regard to which or all of these should have sidewalks. He stated that this does not presuppose that if you live on an MSA street, you are going to have a sidewalk. Council Member Stigney clarified that the MSA designation provides the choice for the project that will support funding for the project. He stated deeming a road an MSA system road, does not mean anything except that the money is being accrued for use or not, and this would be determined by the people who reside on that road. He stated this was the same stipulation that Mayor Coughlin had included in the street Committee's report. He stated this money could accrue, and be used for traffic lights, and MSA roads. He stated the maintenance funds could also be utilized for any roads in the City. He stated there are some sizeable amounts being considered, and he thought this would be the way to go. Mayor Coughlin requested a motion to extend the meeting for no more than one-half hour. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Extend the Council Meeting For No More Than and Up To One-half Hour. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin stated it was his understanding that, until the entire MSA system is certified,the maintenance dollars can not be utilized on any road, except a designated MSA road. Director of Public Works stated that the maintenance dollars could be used anywhere. He stated, theoretically,they are for the maintenance of the MSA roads. He stated they would be for the seal coating, and every MSA road does not require seal coating every year. He stated they do striping, plowing, and patching, but they do not seal coat every year, therefore, some of that money is also put into the street construction fund for capital, and utilized on any roads that require it. He stated, while this is a decision that would probably have to be lived with forever, County Road I was currently an MSA road, and would maintain the City's certification for quite some time. He stated that another street might not. He stated there may be some variances that might be allowed on other streets to bring them closer to the standard, but they were considering two roads that have just undergone extensive reconstruction that they hoped would last for a very long time. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the resolution contained a stipulation indicating that the segment of County Road I would be added as an MSA status turnback. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated it did. Mayor Coughlin stated he had some misgivings regarding the addition of these roads to the MSA system for the same reasons the Chair of the Streets Policies Committee had indicated. He stated he was concerned in regard to the certification of the road, although he would acknowledge the road had just been redone and would probably last for some time to come. 27 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution No.5359, a Resolution Accepting Jurisdictional Transfer of County Road I from West County Line to Silver Lake Road From Ramsey County. Ayes—4 Nays—0 (Coughlin) Motion carried. H. Consideration of Resolution No. 5192,Revoking a Municipal State Aid Street. This item was discussed in conjunction with the previous item. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney To Approve Resolution No. 5192, a Resolution Revoking Municipal State Aid Street. Council Member Quick stated that when these streets were replaced, he would venture that 95 percent of the people living in Mounds View today would not be there. He stated attitudes, ideas, and concerns could be greatly altered. Council Member Stigney stated he agreed. He stated at this point in time, the residents on Spring Lake Road, and County Road I,preferred to have their road done without MSA standards,however 25 years from now, this might completely change. He added that this does not lock the City into anything in his understanding, rather, it allows for the choice. He stated he believed that choice should be given to the residents at that time. He stated in the meantime,it would accrue a large mass of money,which can be utilized for maintenance and construction of other roads. Mayor Coughlin stated for the record, he was opposed to the Municipal State Aid status of Spring Lake Road. I. Discussion Regarding the Information Request Policies of the City of Mounds View. Mayor Coughlin stated Council had been provided, as an addition to their packet, a staff report in regard to a set of situations, involving a particular resident and Commission Member requesting information from the City. He stated this matter had been discussed at a Council Retreat with Carl Neu. Mayor Coughlin stated the situation had arisen wherein an individual requested information in a very hasty manner, and did not like the way the request was handled. He stated,this individual contacted a Council Member who made the request for them, thereby circumventing a set policy of the City, which is,in his opinion,wrong. He stated that if a staff member did an"end run" around a policy, they would be "hung out to dry." He stated he had added this item to the agenda, as he desired to not only reiterate the present policy,which was essentially to set up some form of order to the City in regard to the handling of these matters, and who sets the priorities of the City. He stated one of the elements of his campaign was, in as much as a government entity can be run as a business,he desired it be run as a business. He stated a person with a title or a resident who demands information immediately, and goes around set policies for charging for the associated costs, runs the risk of anarchy at City Hall. 28 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Mayor Coughlin stated that the City Administrator had indicated he was resigned to the issue, and when there is a demand for information from the City,the policy be to set all else aside, and provide that information. Mayor Coughlin inquired what happens when the next person,three minutes later, demands their information. He inquired if the priorities of staff would once again be shifted, therefore nothing would be accomplished. He stated, in his opinion, some form of working policy should be set in the interim until the matter was resolved. He stated,once this policy is set,the entire Council,will be in keeping with Section 6 of the Charter,first sentence,"This Council as a body will carry out the administration of the City." He stated that it is not incumbent upon one Council Member, or a minority of Council Members to dictate authority, or to unilaterally decide what policies can or can not be enforced. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would request consideration of an information request form, very similar to the form the present Council has at its disposal to maintain order and civility. He stated the residents would request items in writing, so that they can be documented according to data practices law within the state. He stated the City Administrator would direct the information request form to staff, and a response would be given no later than five working days after the receipt of that particular request. He stated any costs associated with the request,would be presented and paid for accordingly. He stated members of boards, commissions, committees including the Council,would request any information regarding the next meeting through the chair or staff liaisons of those bodies. He stated the Council would direct their requests through the City Administrator. He added if any information requested was not directly in regard to an item being considered at the next meeting, that request would be presented to the entire board, commission or Council for consideration. He stated that this would assist in preventing individuals from attempting to set policy for the City. He stated the data practices act provides that anyone could request information from the City. He stated that he was attempting to set some form of order to this situation. He stated at worst, they could triage the problem, and at best, they provide an orderly dissemination of information. He stated for example, if the Finance Director was working on an element of the budget, and was required to waylay the entire process,in order to deal with a particular request that same day, he would considered this to be circumventing the will of the Council. He stated he believed the five working day period should also pertain to the Council. He stated any board member or Council Member who has concern regarding this process could appeal to the City Administrator and/or the City Council. Mayor Coughlin stated that the fee schedule was last updated in 1996. He requested the Council direct the Finance Director and staff to update the fee schedule, as per inflation rates, and any other things that may have changed since that time. Council Member Stigney requested clarification of the motion. Mayor Coughlin stated he would direct the City Administrator and staff to create an information request form to be at the front desk at City Hall, so that any and all residents of the City, requesting written information from the City, have it documented and tracked by the City, and that the City would then respond within five working days of the request. He explained this does not necessarily mean the request would be competed in five days. He explained, for instance, a request for personnel information was restricted information. He stated this would be to get a response to the request, and in most cases, obtaining the information requested. He stated furthermore, all boards, 29 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC commissions, committees, and the Council would direct all requests for information through their staff liaisons, or the City Administrator in the case of a Council Member's request. He stated this would be for information pertaining to the next meeting. He stated, in regard to any additional information, it would be incumbent upon the board or commission member to bring the request forward to that entire group for discussion to determine if it was the will of that board or group to move forward with that request, thereby stemming off at least some of the requests which may require thousands of dollars worth of staff time to research, and a considerable sum just in raw product in paper and copy machine toner. Furthermore, if any board member, commissioner or Council Member feels that their request was not addressed properly, they can appeal to the City Administrator or the Council to determine if the response was adequate or proper. Furthermore, to direct staff to update the fee schedule to reflect inflation and other issues that have come up, since the 1996 fee schedule was set. Council Member Stigney stated he agreed wholeheartedly that Mayor Coughlin was attempting to resolve something that he perceived to be a real problem. He stated that Mayor Coughlin had not been a party to what transpired, and in his opinion, was overreacting. He stated that he does not completely agree with the way the Finance Director reported the situation. He stated this was his opinion, and that he was the Council Member involved in it. Council Member Stigney stated, at the retreat,he had brought forward the problem the Chairperson of the Charter Commission was experiencing in obtaining information. He stated the Charter Commission members voted unanimously among themselves to request documentation required by the Charter Commission members, and to have the Chairperson be the access to obtain that information as required for the Charter Commission's action. He stated there was a question regarding who would pay for what, and if the Charter Commission should be charged, or if the Chairperson should be charged out of her pocket and reimbursed by the City, and that question was really not answered. Council Member Stigney stated this matter had to do with City business, in terms of Charter business, and obtaining information from the City. He stated in this particular instance, it had to do with a TIF document which was dated late December of 1998. He stated this document was supposed to be available, and it finally became available. He stated that the Chairperson of the Charter Commission was of the understanding that she had the approval of the City Administrator to obtain that information,when it came available. He stated, as it happened, she requested it a day or two after it had come in,and the Finance Director was not willing to respond to that request unless the City Administrator was present to approve it. Mayor Coughlin stated that he did not wish to have anyone impugned, and that was why he had not used Council Member Stigney's name. Council Member Stigney stated he had no problem using his name. He stated he believed Mayor Coughlin did not understand the circumstances. He stated that the Charter Chair thought she had approval. He stated he did not know if this was or was not the case. He stated that she could not obtain the document and there was a need for it within a short period of time. He stated he had called the Finance Director and inquired if he could request that document as a Councilperson. He stated he did not demand the document be provided immediately. He stated the Finance Director inquired how soon he would like to have the document, and he had indicated that he would like to have it as soon as he could get it. He stated the Finance director 30 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC indicated that he had meetings to attend. Council Member Stigney stated he told the Finance Director if he could get the document before he went to his meeting that would be fine, however, to call and let him know, rather than have him come to City Hall at 2:00 p.m. Council Member Stigney stated that as a Council Member he requested a document. He inquired if, as was his understanding of Mayor Coughlin's motion,he could not request a document from the City unless he obtained prior Council approval. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct, if the document that is being requested was not specifically germane to an upcoming meeting, the request should be brought before the Council. Council Member Stigney stated that he totally disagreed with this. He stated he was an elected official, and if he desired to have access to any document in the City for whatever purpose, whether for the next meeting, next year's meeting, or whatever purpose he deems necessary, he views it within his purview as an elected official to request that document from the City. He added he expects to get it, unless it, for some reason is an extremely long document, however, any normal document that he requests in his business as a Council Member he believes he should have access to. Mayor Coughlin stated that this was circumventing the will of this Council and the policy set forth by the City. Council Member Stigney stated that he totally disagreed with this. He stated, in his opinion, this particular document should have automatically been provided to the entire Council as soon as it became available. He stated it was a TIF financing document that was compiled and completed at the end of 1998. He reiterated that as soon as this document came available the Council should have had it. Mayor Coughlin inquired if all documents that come to the City should therefore be immediately provided to Council Members. Council Member Stigney stated, in light of the upcoming budget discussion, he thought this was a primary concern document. Mayor Coughlin inquired who was to determine what is a primary concern document. Council Member Stigney stated, as he had requested it, he has obviously determined it was a primary concern. He stated that if the Charter Chair requested it, she had determined it is a primary concern. Mayor Coughlin stated that they must set some priorities. He noted the Council has set aside some agenda items, as they have deemed other things more important. He stated if there are only a certain number of staff hours in the day, and if a good deal of those are tied up in looking for particular items such as this,it reduces the amount of staff time left to do the will of the full Council. He stated he was not denying that the information could be requested,however, there needs to be a policy in place. He stated that nobody on the Council should come in as a maverick and order things to be done. He stated if you hear objections from a particular resident, it is incumbent upon the Council and its membership to inform them that they can request the information, however, they must recognize that there is going to be some lead time required.He stated the will of the Council should be primary. 31 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Council Member Stigney stated that Mayor Coughlin was overreacting to a matter of which he had no first hand knowledge. Mayor Coughlin stated this was in regard to taxpayer's money that is being spent in staff time and materials, and that he was desperately attempting to keep that to a minimum. Council Member Stigney stated he understood what the Mayor was trying to do. He stated that he was attempting to prevent something,which in his view,has not occurred. He stated that he had not demanded anything. He stated Mayor Coughlin was referring to someone coming in and demanding information immediately. He asked Finance Director Kessel if he had demanded anything. Finance Director Kessel stated that Council Member Stigney's request, as he understood it,was that he wanted to come down immediately and get the document. Council Member Stigney stated this was correct, he would like to, if he could. He stated that Finance Director Kessel indicated it was not available at that time, and he inquired when it could be available. He stated this was a relatively simple request and he did not demand anything. He stated he had never demanded anything out of a time frame from this staff at any time. He stated that he had made requests, and assumed in a timely manner they would be accommodated. He stated his comment to Finance Director Kessel indicated, if the document was not available presently, and he thought it could be available before 2:00 p.m., he would prefer he call so that he wouldn't come there at 2:00 to find out it was not available. He stated that as far as what preceded this, in regard to the Charter Chair and Finance Director Kessel, he was not aware. Mayor Coughlin stated it would require a motion of the Council to extend the meeting at this point, or all further discussion gets carried over to the next meeting. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To Extend the Meeting of the City Council. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Thomason) Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Move the Question on the Information Request Form, and Close the Debate. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Quick. To Direct the City Administrator and Staff to Create an Information Request Form to Be At the Front Desk At City Hall, So that Any and All Residents of the City Requesting Written Information From the City,Have the Request Documented and Tracked By the City, and That the City Would then Respond Within Five Working days of the Request. Furthermore,All Board,Commission,and Committee Members Direct All Requests For Information Through Their Liaisons, and the Council Direct Their Requests Through the City Administrator for Any Information Pertaining to the Next Scheduled Meeting, and For Any Additional Information, It Would Be Incumbent Upon the Board, Commission, or Committee Members to Bring The Request Up to the Entire Group for Discussion To Determine If It Was the Will of that Board or Group to Move Forward With That Request. Furthermore, If Any Board, Commission, Committee, Or the Council Feels that Their request Was Not Properly Addressed, They Can Appeal to the City Administrator, Or the Council To Determine If the Response Was Adequate and Proper. 32 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC Furthermore,To Direct Staff to Update the Fee Schedule To Reflect Inflation and Other Issues that Have Come Up Since the 1996 Fee Schedule Was Set. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Adjourn the Meeting at 10:33 P.M. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday,August 16, 1999—6:00 PM Next Council Meeting Monday,August 23, 1999—7:00 PM Transcribed and recorded by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 33 C:WDMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC 7 /4 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS AGAINST CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View,pursuant to Minnesota Statute 412.141,has full authority over the financial affairs of the City and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the claim numbers: 13702 through 13711 in the amount of$ 18,751.09 100890 through 101023 in the amount of$ 261,254.61 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED: $ 280,005.70 and has found said claims to be just and correct; It was moved that the City Council of Mounds View hereby approve the attached list of claims dated 08/24/99 by the vote ayes nayes. Mayor Clerk-Administrator Date: 08/19/1999 Time: 11:29:31 City of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 1 FM Entry - Invoice - Check Register Ranges: Bank #: (A) Check Date: (A) Check #: (R) 100890 - 100890 Options: Check # Sort Only: N Format: 1 # of copies: 1 Bank # Check Date Vendor # Vendor Name Check # Type Amount 1 08/05/1999 90808 Nick Giancola 100890 R 15.95 Total Regular: 15.95 Total Manual: .00 Total Regular & Manual: 15.95 Total Voided: .00 Bank Total: 15.95 Grand Total: 15.95 Date: 08/19/1999 Time: 11:23:41 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 1 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Ranges: Fund: (A) Dept Id: (A) Program: (A) Vendor #: (A) Invoice #: (A) Schedule Journal #: (A) Bank #: (A) Cash #: (A) Payroll Check Dates: (A) Options: Print: A Sort: C Report Format: 1 Print Ranges/Options: Y # of copies: 1 Process Payroll: N Total By Account: Y Page on Sort: N Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 13702 Hickok, Kitty Deduction for Savings 350.00 Total for Chk 13702 350.00* 13703 ICMA Retirement Trust ICMA for 08/12/99 3,969.67 Total for Chk 13703 3,969.67* 13704 Law Enforcement Labor Union Dues for August 462.00 Total for Chk 13704 462.00* 13705 Minnesota Child Suppor Child Support for 08/12/ 690.90 Total for Chk 13705 690.90* 13706 MINNESOTA STATE RETIRE MN State and MN Mutual f 432.69 Total for Chk 13706 432.69* 13707 NCPERS Life Insurance PERA Life Ins. for Augus 69.00 Total for Chk 13707 69.00* 13708 Public Employees Retir PERA for 08/12/99 9,927.65 Total for Chk 13708 9,927.65* 13709 Sedgwick E-SNL Dental and Life Ins. for 2,241.18 Total for Chk 13709 2,241.18* 13710 Twin City Federal Mort TCF for August 488.00 Total for Chk 13710 488.00* 13711 Western Bank Savings for 08/12/99 120.00 Total for Chk 13711 120.00* 100891 Terri Blattenbauer Reimbursement-Toys, Book 4350 26.50 Total for Chk 100891 26.50* 100892 Northern States Power 7545 Groveland Rd. 4823 1,820.91 Total for Chk 100892 1,820.91* Date: 08/19/1999 Time: 11:23:41 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 2 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 100093 Nerthwcot Family YMCA Rccrcation programo 2,089.00 Ttal fax CLK 100093 3,000.00* 100894 Rodney Petron Credit for Water Bill Ov 334.68 Total for Chk 100894 334.68* 100895 Inside Corner Umpires Softball Umpires 1,638.00 Total for Chk 100895 1,638.00* 100896 Michael Ulrich Mileage Reimbursement 4470 26.40 Total for Chk 100896 26.40* 100897 AARP AARP Class April 7-8 4352 168.00 Total for Chk 100897 168.00* 100898 AARP AARP Class May 13 4352 240.00 Total for Chk 100898 240.00* 100899 AARP AARP Class June 15 4352 216.00 Total for Chk 100899 216.00* 100900 AARP AARP Class - April 15 4352 272.00 Total for Chk 100900 272.00* 100901 Cathleen Andreasen Park Deposit Refund 50.00 Total for Chk 100901 50.00* 100902 Northern States Power 5100 Long Lake Road 4823 1,269.69 Total for Chk 100902 1,269.69* 100903 A Plus Carpet Cleaners Carpet Cleaning-Council 4160 202.35 Total for Chk 100903 202.35* 100904 A T & T Phone Calls 4901 5.74 Total for Chk 100904 5.74* 100905 Ace Solid Waste, Inc. Rubbish Pickup 4901 351.97 Total for Chk 100905 351.97* 100906 Robert Ahola License overpayment 40.00 Total for Chk 100906 40.00* 100907 Airborne Express Shipping 4901 14.00 Total for Chk 100907 14.00* 100908 Airtouch 799-0126 4360 263.30 Total for Chk 100908 263.30* 100909 Amera-Chem Drug Identification Bibl 4200 74.90 Total for Chk 100909 74.90* Date: 08/19/1999 Time: 11:23:41 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 3 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 100910 American Fasteners of Hex Nuts, Washers, Caps 4900 38.07 Total for Chk 100910 38.07* 100911 American Office Produc 4730 713.54 Total for Chk 100911 713.54* 100912 Assn. of Metropolitan AMM Annual Meeting 4130 60.00 Total for Chk 100912 60.00* 100913 Bacon's Electric Repair Traffic Signal 4416 183.13 Total for Chk 100913 183.13* 100914 Suzanne Barnett Refund for Cancelled Cla 45.00 Total for Chk 100914 45.00* 100915 Judy Bartusch Meter Refund-7981 Sunnys 40.00 Total for Chk 100915 40.00* 100916 Beisswengers Copper Tubing 4823 529.04 Total for Chk 100916 529.04* 100917 Evan Benidt Golf Refund 110.00 Total for Chk 100917 110.00* 100918 Mary Bixler 2229 Co. Rd. H2 30.00 Total for Chk 100918 30.00* 100919 City of Blaine 8290 Coral Sea St.N.E. 4901 97.80 Total for Chk 100919 97.80* 100920 Bob's Personal Coffee Coffee 4160 34.99 Total for Chk 100920 34.99* 100921 Lanny Brekke Deposit Refund 25.00 Total for Chk 100921 25.00* 100922 Brighton Veterinary Ho Veterinary Services-July 4200 240.50 Total for Chk 100922 240.50* 100923 Brinkman Russell, Inc. Coughlin Telephone Reimb 4100 110.25 Total for Chk 100923 110.25* 100924 Bumper to Bumper GMC Truck Parts 4823 72.46 Total for Chk 100924 72.46* 100925 Kyle Burdine Regional/State Refund 120.00 Total for Chk 100925 120.00* 100926 Capitol Beverage Sales Beverages 4901 542.65 Total for Chk 100926 542.65* Date: 08/19/1999 Time: 11:23:41 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 4 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 100927 Jennifer Cich Deposit Refund 25.00 Total for Chk 100927 25.00* 100928 Cintas - 748 Floor Mats 4350 678.57 Total for Chk 100928 678.57* 100929 Classic Touch, Inc. Car Washes 4200 66.03 Total for Chk 100929 66.03* 100930 Cushman Motor Company, Repair Parts, EZ-Go Cart 4900 69.52 Total for Chk 100930 69.52* 100931 D. C. A. Inc. Flex.Spending Acct.-July 4160 150.00 Total for Chk 100931 150.00* 100932 David-Geoffrey & Assoc Golf Merchandise 4901 198.60 Total for Chk 100932 198.60* 100933 Davies Water Equipment PVC Pipe, Plug, Screws 4470 125.45 Total for Chk 100933 125.45* 100934 Dehn Oil Diesel Fuel 4825 263.08 Total for Chk 100934 263.08* 100935 Determan Brownie, Inc. Gauge for Diesel Tank on 4825 18.96 Total for Chk 100935 18.96* 100936 Mathew Doth Deposit Refund 25.00 Total for Chk 100936 25.00* 100937 Ellen Duncan Golf Refund 110.00 Total for Chk 100937 110.00* 100938 East Side Beverage Co. Beverages 4901 448.40 Total for Chk 100938 448.40* 100939 Elegant Thymes Caterin Comtrol Luncheon 2,532.42 Total for Chk 100939 2,532.42* 100940 Fedors Market Groceries 4460 45.60 Total for Chk 100940 45.60* 100941 Finley Bros., Inc. Outdoor Basketball Court 4650 9,180.00 Total for Chk 100941 9,180.00* 100942 Five D Limited Gasoline 4200 635.05 Total for Chk 100942 635.05* 100943 Focus News Legal Notice-6991 Pleasa 4650 21.60 Total for Chk 100943 21.60* Date: 08/19/1999 Time: 11:23:41 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 5 ' City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 100944 Friendly Chevrolet GEO Car Parts 4465 90.42 Total for Chk 100944 90.42* 100945 Gerten Greenhouses, In Landscaping 4900 324.24 Total for Chk 100945 324.24* 100946 Golf Car Midwest 3 Mo. Lease-Golf Carts 4901 577.30 Total for Chk 100946 577.30* 100947 Gopher State One-Call, 142 Calls 4825 248.50 Total for Chk 100947 248.50* 100948 W. W. Grainger Fan/Blower Motor 4823 353.64 Total for Chk 100948 353.64* 100949 Green Tree Vendor Sery Lease Payment 4460 153.28 Total for Chk 100949 153.28* 100950 H & B Construction Porter Athletic Equipmen 4650 33,346.28 Total for Chk 100950 33,346.28* 100951 Home Depot Commercial Materials for Pop Buildi 4901 66.05 Total for Chk 100951 66.05* 100952 Hornungs Pro Golf Sale "Range Closed" Sign 4902 36.23 Total for Chk 100952 36.23* 100953 Hughes & Costello Statement for Legal Sery 4200 3,500.00 Total for Chk 100953 3,500.00* 100954 Kath Fuel Oil Service 4462 1,292.07 Total for Chk 100954 1,292.07* 100955 Kennedy & Graven 4160 3,425.50 Total for Chk 100955 3,425.50* 100956 Bruce Kessel Conference & Mileage Rei 4150 117.00 Total for Chk 100956 117.00* 100957 KI - Minncor Office Furniture 4650 385.20 Total for Chk 100957 385.20* 100958 Candy Kremin Deposit Refund 225.00 Total for Chk 100958 225.00* 100959 Labor Relations Associ Arbitration 4130 799.50 Total for Chk 100959 799.50* 100960 Lesco, Inc. Fertilizer 4900 1,529.32 Total for Chk 100960 1,529.32* Date: 08/19/1999 Time: 11:23:41 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 6 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 100961 M.D.A. Consulting Grou Exec.Assessment for Poli 4130 2,000.00 Total for Chk 100961 2,000.00* 100962 M.T.I. Distributing Co Detergent, Drain Plug Wr 4900 256.69 Total for Chk 100962 256.69* 100963 MacQueen Equipment, In Switch Conv. 4823 191.19 Total for Chk 100963 191.19* 100964 Shannon McFarlane Deposit Refund 50.00 Total for Chk 100964 50.00* 100965 Medtox Laboratories Drug Test 4160 30.00 Total for Chk 100965 30.00* 100966 Menards 4900 65.38 Total for Chk 100966 65.38* 100967 Metro Council Environm Wastewater Service 4823 53,594.42 Total for Chk 100967 53,594.42* 100968 Metro Council Environm SAC Charges 2,108.70 Total for Chk 100968 2,108.70* 100969 Metro Legal Services, Del. to B. Long 4100 23.00 Total for Chk 100969 23.00* 100970 Microfacs Fax Ribbon 4350 495.78 Total for Chk 100970 495.78* 100971 Midwest Asphalt Corpor Asphalt 4470 1,773.79 Total for Chk 100971 1,773.79* 100972 Midwest Coca/Cola Beverages 4901 2,897.55 Total for Chk 100972 2,897.55* 100973 Mike's Pro Shop Plaques 4352 275.00 Total for Chk 100973 275.00* 100974 Minnesota Golf Cars, I Parts for Club Cars 4900 75.10 Total for Chk 100974 75.10* 100975 Mita Financial Service Copier Payment 4200 102.99 Total for Chk 100975 102.99* 100976 Mounds View, City of 8132 Groveland-Petrov Wa 138.02 Total for Chk 100976 138.02* 100977 Muffler Doctor Muffler Repair 4900 150.20 Total for Chk 100977 150.20* Emma. V Date: 08/19/1999 Time: 11:23:41 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 7 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 100978 Multicare Associates, Police Chief Exam 4200 262.85 Total for Chk 100978 262.85* 100979 Bruce Nelson Plumbing Plumbing Repair 4350 125.20 Total for Chk 100979 125.20* 100980 Neu and Company Workshop 4100 1,537.50 Total for Chk 100980 1,537.50* 100981 New Brighton, City of Forestry Services - 3rd 4380 4,932.00 Total for Chk 100981 4,932.00* 100982 New Mech Companies, In Booster Station Improvem 4823 5,799.37 Total for Chk 100982 5,799.37* 100983 Nike USA, Inc. Golf Merchandise 4901 717.36 Total for Chk 100983 717.36* 100984 Northern Sanitary Supp Cleaning Supplies 4350 3,907.00 Total for Chk 100984 3,907.00* 100985 Northern States Power 2401 Hwy. 10-Police/City 4160 9,758.50 Total for Chk 100985 9,758.50* 100986 Northwest Family YMCA Parks & Rec. Management 4350 39,270.00 Total for Chk 100986 39,270.00* 100987 Orkin Exterminating Co Exterminating 4160 88.29 Total for Chk 100987 88.29* 100988 Pace Analytical Well Testing 4825 77.00 Total for Chk 100988 77.00* 100989 Steve Pease Regional State Refunds 110.00 Total for Chk 100989 110.00* 100990 Plaisted Companies, In Field Stone, Top Dressin 4903 904.94 Total for Chk 100990 904.94* 100991 Pomp's Tire Service, I Tire Repair 4900 75.00 Total for Chk 100991 75.00* 100992 Ramsey County Property Tax-House on Ea 4650 802.66 Total for Chk 100992 802.66* 100993 Ramsey County Street Center Line Paint 4470 6,226.83 Total for Chk 100993 6,226.83* 100994 Shannon Roepke Mileage Reimbursement 4350 84.00 Total for Chk 100994 84.00* Date: 08/19/1999 Time: 11:23:41 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 8 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 100995 Scantron Service Group Maintenance Agreement 4820 241.31 Total for Chk 100995 241.31* 100996 Short-Elliott & Hendri Edgewood Drive Signal 4470 39,217.70 Total for Chk 100996 39,217.70* 100997 Sims Security Security Officer 94.51 Total for Chk 100997 94.51* 100998 Elsie Skarda Meter Refund-2135 Bronso 30.00 Total for Chk 100998 30.00* 100999 Snyders Film Processing 4200 2.65 Total for Chk 100999 2.65* 101000 Rich Sonterre Regional State Refunds 110.00 Total for Chk 101000 110.00* 101001 Spalding Golf Merchandise 4901 111.48 Total for Chk 101001 111.48* 101002 Spring Lake Park Fire Fire Inspection Service- 4210 5,461.84 Total for Chk 101002 5,461.84* 101003 Spring Lake Park Lumbe Blades, Trowels 4823 125.09 Total for Chk 101003 125.09* 101004 St. Joseph Equipment, Equipment Repair 4460 340.45 Total for Chk 101004 340.45* 101005 St. Paul Pioneer Press Classified Ad 4160 151.80 Total for Chk 101005 151.80* 101006 St. Paul Pioneer Press Subscription 4130 44.46 Total for Chk 101006 44.46* 101007 Star Tribune Subscription 4130 52.00 Total for Chk 101007 52.00* 101008 Sysco Food Services of Cleaning Supplies,Towels 4901 1,201.05 Total for Chk 101008 1,201.05* 101009 Therma-Stor Products Air Filters 4823 13.98 Total for Chk 101009 13.98* 101010 Time Saver City Council Mtg.-July 2 4100 515.50 Total for Chk 101010 515.50* 101011 U. S. West Communicati 780-1908 4360 20.11 Total for Chk 101011 20.11* Date: 08/19/1999 Time: 11:23:42 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 9 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101012 U. S. West 785-0950 4360 2,330.46 Total for Chk 101012 2,330.46* 101013 Viking Electric Die Head, Tube Bender 4823 218.65 Total for Chk 101013 218.65* 101014 Voss Lighting Comm.Ctr.Lighting 4350 179.69 Total for Chk 101014 179.69* 101015 Wager's, Inc Maintenance Contract 4823 27.00 Total for Chk 101015 27.00* 101016 Phyllis Wagner Refund Resident Fee 20.00 Total for Chk 101016 20.00* 101017 Walker Roofing Co., In Permit Refund 69.05 Total for Chk 101017 69.05* 101018 Western Bank Savings Bond-Gimler 4420 50.00 Total for Chk 101018 50.00* 101019 Amy Wheeler Refund for Cancelled Tri 15.00 Total for Chk 101019 15.00* 101020 Charles Whiting Telephone Reimbursement 4130 29.35 Total for Chk 101020 29.35* 101021 Yahoo Internet Life Subscription 4180 19.97 Total for Chk 101021 19.97* 101022 Yamaha Motor Corp., U. Final Payment-Golf Car L 4901 457.12 Total for Chk 101022 457.12* 101023 Zep Manufacturing Co. Zep Flash 4460 128.40 Total for Chk 101023 128.40* Grand Total 282,093.70* RESOLUTION Nth ea tipa. 9 -6 Authorizing interfund advance from Special Projects Fund to Golf Course. Aut g p CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota Councilor introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, the City issued bonds in 1994 to construct a golf course and driving range which have several covenants including requiring the City to maintain bond reserves of approximately$309,000. WHEREAS, the City constructed a golf course and later pursued legal action to correct construction deficiencies; and WHEREAS,the City settled its lawsuit out of court at an amount less than the cost to pay the associated legal fees and correct the construction deficiencies; and WHEREAS, the golf course has had interfund borrowings in the past but presently does not have adequate cash to meet its bond covenants. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that City authorizes an additional$200,000 of interfund loans to be available to the golf course to meet its bond covenants. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the actual amount to be made available on an annual basis shall not exceed the amount required to maintain the City's required bond reserves. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the golf course shall repay such amounts the earlier of: 1)when such funds are no longer needed to meet the required bond covenants;or 2)within two years after all the bonds have been repaid(year 2016). The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by and the roll being call,the following vote was recorded: Voting Aye: . Voting Nay: . Not Voting: Whereas said resolution was declared to have been duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of August 1999. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator RESOLUTION NOf�534,3 Authorize Golf Course Assistant Superintendent position. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota Councilor introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS,the City needs to attract and retain quality staff to make its golf course successful; WHEREAS, the City determined that due to the extended hours of operations and the need for a knowledgeable and dependable individual to backup the Superintendent that it is in the best interests of the City to have a salaried Assistant Superintendent position; and WHEREAS,the City authorized said position in 1998,however the position has been vacant for over a year. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that City reestablish the Assistant Superintendent position and set the maximum salary for the position for 1999 at $28,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is authorized to advertise, screen, interview and hire an individual to fill this position as soon as practicable. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by and the roll being call, the following vote was recorded: Voting Aye: . Voting Nay: . Not Voting: . Whereas said resolution was declared to have been duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of August, 1999. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator • Item No. 17 LJ Staff Report No. Meeting Date: August 23, 1999 Type of Business: C.A. WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution No. 5361 Approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement for Edgewood Drive and TH 10 Date of Report: August 18, 1999 In conjunction with the construction of the traffic signal at Edgewood Dr. and TH 10,the City is also required to enter into a signal agreement with MnDot. Resolution No. 5361 approves this agreement. A copy of the agreement is attached to the resolution. i hael Ulrich, Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Council approve Resolution No. 5361, Approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement For Edgewood Drive and Trunk Highway No. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 5361 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT FOR EDGEWOOD DRIVE AND TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 10 WHEREAS,the City of Mounds View is entering into a traffic control signal agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation. BE IT RESOLVED,that the City of Mounds View enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes; to wit: To install a new traffic control signal with street lights, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 10 at Edgewood Drive-Theater Entrance in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 79328R, a copy of which was before the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. Adopted this 23rd day of August, 1999 ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota ) County of Ramsey ) City of Mounds View) I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Mounds View at a meeting thereof held in the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, on the 23rd day of August, 1999, as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession. ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 79328R BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW TO Install a new Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights, Interconnect and Signing on Trunk Highway No . 10 at Edgewood Drive - Theater Entrance in Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota. S.P. 6204-48 S .A.P. 146-010-02 and 146-232-02 C.P. 97-05 Prepared by Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AMOUNT ENCUMBERED City of Mounds View $20, 420 . 00 None Otherwise Covered THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" , and the City of Mounds View, hereinafter referred to as the "City" , WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161 . 20 (1999) authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system; and WHEREAS, it is justified and considered mutually desirable to install a new traffic control signal with street lights, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No . 10 at Edgewood Drive - Theater Entrance; and WHEREAS, it is considered in the public' s best interest for the State to provide two (2) pedestal shafts and bases and a new cabinet and controller for said new traffic control signal . Such materials as described immediately above shall hereinafter be referred to as "State furnished materials" ; and WHEREAS, the City and State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of the new traffic control signal with street lights, interconnect and signing as hereinafter set forth; 79328R -1- NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS : 1 . The City shall prepare the necessary plan, specifications and proposal which shall constitute "Preliminary Engineering" . The City shall also perform the construction inspection required to complete the items of work hereinafter set forth, which shall constitute "Engineering and Inspection" . 2 . The City with its own forces and equipment or by contract shall install the new traffic control signal with street lights, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 10 at Edgewood Drive - Theater Entrance in accordance with the plan and specifications for State Project No. 6204-48, State Aid Project No. ' s 146-010-02 and 146-232-02 and City Project No. 97-05, all at the cost and expense of the City. 3 . The State will furnish to the City the State furnished materials to be installed with the City work provided in Paragraph 2 . Estimated cost for State furnished materials is $20, 420 . 00 . City' s share is 100 percent. 4 . Upon execution and approval of this agreement and a request in writing by the State, the City shall advance to the State an amount equal to its portion of the costs as specified in Paragraph 3 . The City' s costs shall be based on the estimated costs for State furnished materials . 79328R -2- 5 . Upon compilation of the actual costs for State furnished materials, the amount of the funds advanced by the City in excess of the City' s share will be returned to the City without interest and the City agrees to pay to the State that amount of its share which is in excess of the amount of the funds advanced by the City. 6 . The construction work provided for herein shall be under the direction and supervision of the City. It is agreed, however, that the State shall have the right to periodically inspect said cost sharing construction work. 7 . The City shall provide an adequate electrical power supply to the service pad or pole, and upon completion of said new traffic control signal with street lights installation shall provide necessary electrical power for its operation at the cost and expense of the City. 8 . Upon completion of the work contemplated in Paragraph 2 hereof, it shall be the City' s responsibility, at its cost and expense, to: (1) maintain the luminaires and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; (2) relamp the new traffic control signal and street lights; and (3 ) clean and paint the new traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions . It shall be the State' s responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the signing 79328R -3- and interconnect and to perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 9 . Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the State and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker' s Compensation Act of this State on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not be the obligation and responsibility of the State. The City shall not be responsible under the Worker' s Compensation Act for any employees of the State. 10 . Timing of the new traffic control signal provided for herein shall be determined by the State, through its Commissioner of Transportation, and no changes shall be made therein except with the approval of the State. 79328R -4- CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney Mayor (City Seal) By City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By Assistant Division Engineer Assistant Commissioner Dated APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION By Assistant Attorney General State of Minnesota Dated 79328R -5- CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota ) County of Ramsey ) City of Mounds View) I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Mounds View at a meeting thereof held in the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, on the 23rd day of August, 1999, as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession. ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CLERK- ADMINISTRATOR Item No. / �E Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Barb Benesch Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL Meeting Date: August 23, 19999 Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will expire on December 30, 1999. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of insurance. Licenses are noted with a"New" or"Renewal" after the company name. Those licenses defined as"new" include all applicants that have never been licensed with the City or have not been licensed within the past two years. Those defined as"renewal" were licensed last year. General Commercial Bremer Construction -New HVAC Don's Service of Golden Valley - New Four Seasons Air Specialists -New Sewer/Water S. W. Lee Construction -New Sign Universal Signs, Inc. - Renewal Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Item No. /0 /4 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: August 23, 1999 Type of Business: PH& CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5353, a Resolution Contemplating the Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Garage at 2809 Woodale Drive. Date of Report: August 19, 1999 Background: 2809 Woodale Drive is located south of Highway 10, two properties west of Silver Lake Road. The area of the subject property--an interior lot--is approximately 16,200 square feet. The house and garage are set back approximately 60 feet from the street, with the detached garage situated alongside the house to the east. The house, at approximately 400 square feet, is much smaller than the existing two-stall garage, which is 720 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct a 576 square-foot addition to the rear of the garage, maintaining the same width and roofline of the existing garage. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on August 18, 1999, the Planning Commission passed Resolution 590-99, a resolution recommending to the City Council denial of the requested conditional use permit. Analysis: A Conditional Use Permit is required due to the size of the proposed garage and the fact that the garage would be larger than the house. The size of the proposed garage would be 1,296 square feet, which would be three times the size of the house. The Planning Commission and City Council have in the past been very concerned about this type of imbalance. A garage is intended to be an accessory structure to service the principal dwelling, not the dominating feature of the property. A garage of this size, were it to be built, would appear out of place and obtrusive, in staff's opinion. Dimensional Criteria While the size of the garage with respect to the home appears to be excessive, all of the dimensional criteria associated with this request--setbacks, spacing between buildings, width of proposed garage, and the numbers of doors--satisfy the requirements as stated in Chapter 1104 of the Zoning Code. The garage after the proposed addition would be about 53 feet from the rear Skeate CUP Request 2809 Woodale Drive August 23, 1999 Page 2 property line and 5.5 feet from the east property line. The total square footage of the garage and proposed addition is 1,296 square feet, which would comprise about 16 percent of the rear yard area. The maximum coverage allowed is 20 percent. Adverse Effects The City Code, in Section 1125.01, Subd. 1 states that the possible adverse effects of a conditional use permit request shall be considered prior to making a decision. The following represent those items explicitly stated in the Code: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2809 Woodale Drive, as high-density residential. The existing use is not compatible with the land use designation, yet this will be corrected with the updated comprehensive plan. Garages and other types of accessory structures like sheds and tool buildings are allowed and expected in this district, yet a garage that is triple the size of the house may be inconsistent with the second residential goal, which states: "Preserve the identity and improve the quality and appearance of existing residential neighborhoods." Staff feels that this proposal would not improve the quality and appearance of the neighborhood. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are as large or larger than the subject property. There is a good mix of architecture present in the neighborhood, with some of the houses being older and some newer. The subject home, however, is much smaller than those in the immediate area. Many homes in this area have large garages yet they do not appear out of place because the houses are larger as well. While a larger garage could be accommodated on the subject property, it would not be proportionally consistent with the house. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. It can be generally assumed that adding to the existing garage would have a positive impact on the value of the subject property. It is not known whether a garage three times larger than the home would have a negative monetary impact upon the neighborhood, even though it may be visually obtrusive. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing 720 square-foot garage is considered typical by today's standards. While it does not have access for three vehicles, there is ample work area and storage space beyond that Skeate CUP Request 2809 Woodale Drive August 23, 1999 Page 3 space needed for the vehicles. However with multi-car families being the norm rather than the exception, demonstrating the need for additional garage space becomes less of an issue. • In the opinion of Staff and the Planning Commission, this proposal does not satisfy the adverse effects criteria. General CUP Criteria: Section 1125.01, subdivision 3b of the City Code lists the general Conditional Use Permit criteria that need to be considered. The criteria, with responses, are as follows: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Adding on to the existing garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities, parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Because the house to the east is set back further from the street than the house and garage at 2809 Woodale Drive, any expansion to the garage would be fully visible to people on both Woodale Drive and Silver Lake Road, in addition to the abutting property owners. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. A garage expansion in and of itself would be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code, although the Code stipulates that any time a proposed garage or garage expansion becomes larger than the house, City review in the form of a conditional use permit is required. The intent of this provision is grounded in the concern that the Commission and Council share, and that is, a garage should not excessively dominate the property or create a proportional imbalance. Skeate CUP Request 2809 Woodale Drive August 23, 1999 Page 4 • As they relate to this specific proposal, Staff and the Planning Commission believe that the general conditional use permit criteria are not conclusively met. Recommendation: Both Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the conditional use permit request for an over-sized garage at 2809 Woodale Drive be denied. Based upon these recommendations, staff has prepared for the Council's action Resolution 5353, a resolution of denial. If the resolution provided does not meet with the acceptance of the Council, it can either be revised or rewritten and brought back before the Council at your next meeting. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\566-99\SKEATES.CC 1 arta: [Erb, '• ; CO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • -2DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION � , i 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 "At,.PartaoS'Q' 612-717-4020 • 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information 1fl Name of Applicant / r eci e. Telephone CO~ 7/7'1 V)) Address R4a? (M)od •I Fax • jw- S Oev/ 14,4 53-* ,z Interest in Property(check appropriate box) ❑ Owner of Property X Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase a Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign thisapplication for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location - pp _ 07 6)41aJ A l t- Ail Legal Description t.O I 1,1 64-e(1- A1ld r A /_c o t Property Identification#(PIN#) 7-30 -21-31 O 017— #of Acres Current Zoning eit'Oe7l ( r — Type of Application a Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 • ❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* a Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) •Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 • r Conditional Use Permit R-1, R- "'�all others$250 ❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 a Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days atter consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property c Undeveloped/Vacant a Single Family Dwelling 0 Duplex/Two Dwelling Multi-family Dwelling `0 G Business/Commercial Establishment c Industrial Establishment I . . , C Other(explain) (�- . r I" ! - r fscMi lr Property Classification a Abstract C Torrers Description of Proposal (AOA1.yJ j ik U ?Kii-fr-t_ ae old feii ay .y � Co/red-if' Si:, cr I 2y _ 7- `3d ie •r Oc4e— ..��o.e_ po2 .v ifw,/ , 4�,c�1ri /i it-c# Aje., . G.i- A�� • •� A.Je - e 6010 b 1 ICC T1 � ",be)-771, alis' 4 IA/fi/ j/.Sr' fie &rel) . BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant /Of'_ — Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Nei eea7c-" Property Owner ' Pro /''•cam' r �+" . Signature of Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) 1-77Ye..e r-e.. Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner • ************************************************************************************************ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 7- - Date of Acceptance Adtingair Assigned to: Planning Case No. 60-day Limit 120-day limit Account# Check# Receipt# • Application: Fees P dop /04 7 .3�92 ,Q5c40�� !� Park Dedication: • Deposits: Other: • • Total: 1/98 N:\DATA\GROUPS\C OMDEV\FO RIMS\DEVAPP.FOR t..., 7400 738:> N N 15 7380 LY 7381 7382- 7395 a. 7390 738- N N N N 15 7350 N 7365 7360 7375 S7378 H.DG IN c .. 7350 rr Beep h co 1 N �c�*i 3, � 7347 34' 7373 12 _. ., ''a 735• th - . 32$ 3 `• ; re) 7344 736. N n 7 325.,� n a 33 M uy n a, 7317 N N 1.: ut- ;:O O ti I- aN N :0 N N ff/�� M F. p 0 RD R-2 N d tp 1 8 1E- g M N 2 O S N 4' 8 ��. p p7295 _ a M{ N I PI M IS 1 ,9) 1 ,4 N i N N N N N N N N S N 28• [7 ^ N J N t ; \S .1 i ,.71.-8V 18 18 I , gig EN • �- 517 5177 7234 7237 O . 1 7226 7225 _... -517 5175w _..__ 7200 7215 Pr" 7190: 517 51747188 7191 7172 R-4 517 5171 7180 i5 517p� 7151 169 r- 7150 ;:: � M � n CO' opo allo ago z _ N O M N 2 \ N N N N N vi N 9 516615165 M "' WOODALE DR WYj 516451 163 c I g '11 aei 7100 7095 m aaj709. 516215161 A 0 O N ; N N 7094 O_ N N Nr • WOODALE t 7092 ix_ ,911 M M ' 0 7085 — . - 5143 7082 7090 707N 7095 1 _____ 7074 7074 0 7063 06I _5139 7072 7069 060 Y. „) ,n . ^ a, coo R-2al _5133 E 1 7054 7057 7044 703 co co co ,9„ R CREST 7034 WOODCREST w 5119 704 > PARK 7026 >.__ -_... i 7028 Od rrJ/_\A_ J N 702 �_ • 000N PF N 5107 7006 701 N N Op 6986 � _� � � ,509 509f 509 N 69'1 2940 5086 5085 tx 5086 508; '6970 i~Z. 697 2932 .�;1:41gn*I, / 596�tI �.. 6960 508 5079 50=0 507C. 6952 6953 N 77:16.86951 507 5071 507 5071 6942 0 N N``~; 6945 * 6940 506 5065 S 5066 506; 6939 1 -- 50 5069,0 5060 5055 6929 in 1 n os a, . M to n as Z 6928 5054 5053 D 505 505' - pf-^ ; N [ rt O d M N .- O O - -� 16900 p 8 ► )rN N N NN N N N N N5046 5045 504. 504: Zoning Map Planning Case 566-99 Applicant: Skeates Conditional Use Permit N4 Location: 2809 Woodale Drive i City of Mounds View Location Map i I I -'- ' ii N Fr► i11r \.__ N\ � 11- �.: . all immuomllo in —}Pior - sir- 1 - i iti1Ufa_ ipmmil 1 f- Ma ► „ va _L- „,,_., 1111111— ._ Ti!I . mom, Mr . , r �I UIl�UhI■ — I H — T 1 — . .ale. N:f s :•0lUUII1 — - - -� - — — ma N. TIII - - T -r TTl - =_ _s== __ __ti , Tim Skeate - - �•=-_- 2809 Woodale Drive -,.... rrirr►� .. �-_- IIIii: Conditional Use Permit 'i_ w,ou�ll„IE:�:uu..Nilo- .Illllllllu: 1Ij SIRi - Planning Case No. 566-99 __ TM i •.......r.,..,rrr.rrr.rrr! it �•�\ mg ............nuuunuuuuu .1_I_! i.E u.u..n.0 1 1 .uw rtmmrm,�uunauuuu ✓ "1:0N ''''” _ -'` ` 2809 Woodale Drive '��:lig i; ;.SE Usl •' 4 4111111\11 _ iunuuuug:11 Properties Within 350' ;If :N1111111111 AR Nimiumi .1116u116_ _ IIIIIIIIIP; 'I! 111II a a a sKr:4=u=uuu.0 111.,,,,::: 14: � '_1101 ,,: 6 :'i �� ® `� =1c,;€;,Ili HE': �M�1MN:MI,� r® "k► Ii : • Customer: Application: . Job: By: Date: n..s '.rctira.+r»nw•..w.suv...•,.:.•—'-3--n.rr•....w..w_• . 4„.. w•----•••M•..,„.wYlr+w....x•rr..a+1„4„r••.„,..„:•...„n•...,.w•w••r n+b.ru....x•n0•a..uw.aw.L+wwm`•w•.T-•.iw•. ..w•+.•i++wrwwr h„� • 1 R Y . r • • .1 • •; . 1 i. •i•t* •..•t-� w : • i T. •• •• . • t ° S i t • ' i.• `Ft , f •> •.. . .• S.r.• • Sg • • .. • . , 1.:. r i• t t • 1-T It• . , t•• : • .. f..a . •• .3.r . : {. . r 1.. . . .. ! , •�•. E , . ' • j . j ( : i : . i. , ;.1 is r. i••,••• t i .r i > ; t i , .•t• 4 • 1-• ..r.:t..t . • _ z f t ' t i i 3 pp1 t . > . , . `..T 1 i o 1. ;. ,f : i.... !.. . > + . . . a . i r 1 . • 1 ..R _' S..« _ - . • i 1 }. - • ' • i : . > • . .. ¢S3{� 1 • SS.. .; i _ t t /• . > • #. .r 4 , 4. { �`� i�-7r;.L, . ! . . . 7 r 3 i .. . . . . . ' i ' } . • •• 4.•, . i• 1 1. 1 ' ` 3 . .• { • : ..,•••:-.3-1-1-1-4.-.4.4•4.1-:. : t •• .. • i. ; , . i i• E .i •[r - !!-t -••••i..-• :;••••• 1 {. > . • . • 3 _•• 1.• . . • . . . . ti • : , > 1 , . . ' i.i i I. :• _ : 3 .» r I,•"• Y"n.+ •.251 t r.r•X 1 .• .• ;. . • . i . .. - . . • . . . . • • r- r... •r• - , .? . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . ; , . •. . - • , . . . . . • . . 1 • .•. , • ;.. j ..1 4 -, . . : , . • .. . , • • , l 1+ l.• . .. . . . r. ,w........•••.,.......• ;•.....,i+.r•..,.......w....,..+•,w.;1 wvm........a.. ' }�•.. •.rv+....r.w.. .........,,..:..,w..r•..••,w..r...h na....•...i.r. .u..1...w.t+.. ,....Tw..•,..v.... .. , , . . . , . r • • •..v t • • • • j . • i 1 .o ir....•.+....... «. ,.. w- S I • . .. • _ l '. }:.. 1 . ' . - . f , ,. . , - ... •. i . . 1,..I»i` 4.. :.�..i , , , . , . .. ...•. ? .r..n..w.a.•...........:...y...........>..,,.•...»•+�i...'•-+..++a«.••.•.w.-.....-d... ...i.• ..w-r•,�...••.•w•.t...w.....y.d»... ••••••:•.«tk•••7:.•,h••� . n,..e,,..3,.n.+....' i- '.....•r+•:». • t t f { . , r . • , .. .. > . . . 1. - i 1 . ,. s f t. i 1 i . .,... .i! . -..4! eft i 'tr S I {. ..; S , t . •.. . T t.3- j • ji r ! 1 ! . F . . . # t { r d t. !..{.., t : 4 • :'• • ! . . aF . . : , > i••. }. .1. !.i. ' y . .; S .: !. . . • � i L.r. 4 • t ; .,. •..j . , ! .{..1 r �1� • Y k , '3 1 • S . :. j.j..i : i - . 1 ;. t . r , I. ' > # i i ,, S t ! i i /: . int : , } .j • i• .S • 1 t i. S. : -,- i ». - ! t • I '. ' i ,•1 • I i.i : l i i - i 1 I t . i i i L I t _ i F • ! i ' . - i., t. i t 1 I , i i 1•4 j r r {..1.}..4 t. •1•.: i •1.•I t t , : • 1. . • 7 S • 1 •t 4 t : -i •-_• • • ! t i • •I'..i. ! • ,..• . :...-,,.., .a....•.�•... 7 i i 1 r•i 4 .i t ; .i. , i 1 h q`• ; ; ; { . . _ • ; a . o- 1....•.t 1 • . 1 > 1.1 • r• .i / I : -R ' a • ' t. t F ; • 1 t ' - . f. .4.! ,'..i • ,.� S , . . r d S 3.+. }• • .....4 31 , r S 1 : . ! j i i , 3 : • ; • .1•. , 3- 4 i • - 1 1.;•-f •i ..A . • . - ! I .r. .l..j.'i i r.t ••• I . i..I <. •.t i Y-! : 1 i 1, { 1.E. -,• ; •t t 3 .: j . ! .,i : i i. ty ;, ` ' 1 .. . .Y-1.. . 71 i i i • i t .i . i t.1. t i S . i 4, ! i . • Il S ,�'•'ar :�I" ? '.t. •;' r 1 ,.} :. .} : 4 .i :• : } ! i.i e F h • .t } 1. 1 . , i p ;. .. }..c.u•• :- , , . - > r Y> .S 1 i• . . :. I. 4 6..1 . ! i d•A, . 1 :., . {. yt i 'I' i i i ;, . :re, •; } r., �.._i_3i-• ... i. ! . . , ' I.;. 3 t ' , , , r : , t- 1 d i- j. .Y 3 {. }-• 3 r -,- , .;..;_ ...Ip • 3• ! •_ t ..; fi •'t j ". , a , .t a ... 1, i i i i• i .t. i .! i • . i - . • • . . . _ • : i . . i • : j • , : . 1 ; t. i i • • . . . . . . . , 2 1 1 j . . +. I } - t I' } . • i •, , t• 'it !; , . •t .\ } i 1.,+, ` : } t 4 : . i • i • - 1 n d • i • i , a . i - } ' 1 . • i ' t 3.{ R i .2 .{. • ! • r • . g ' . , . .. t , > , ' . r- r , 2 f , , •• i t . , i ' •,•• : -. . . , . • f . } S . . i , i > . . , . > t . 1 . • 1 • - SPEC SHEET of UGHSTRUT NORTHERN , MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 590-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 2809 WOODALE DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 552-99 Whereas, Tim Skeate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a 1,296 square- foot garage on property located at 2809 Woodale Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 12, Except the North 250 Feet,Knollwood Park County of Ramsey WHEREAS, there is currently an existing 720 square-foot garage on this property and a 400 square-foot home on this lot; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,400 square feet of garage/accessory building space on one lot; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Location Map e. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings in relation to Section 1125.01 Subdivision. 1.e, of the Mounds View Zoning Code, regarding the possible adverse effects of this proposal: Planning Commission Resolution 590-99 August 18, 1999 Page 2 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2809 Woodale Drive, as high-density residential. The existing use is not compatible with the land use designation,yet this will be corrected with the updated comprehensive plan. Garages and other types of accessory structures--like sheds and tool buildings--are allowed and even expected in this district,yet a garage that is triple the size of the house would be inconsistent with the second residential goal, which states: "Preserve the identity and improve the quality and appearance of residential neighborhoods. " Allowing a garage that is three times as large as the house would create an obtrusive structural imbalance and could likely detract from the aesthetic appearances of the neighborhood. This proposal does conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are as large or larger than the subject property. There is a good mix of architecture present in the neighborhood, with some of the houses being older and some newer. The subject home, however, is significantly smaller than those in the immediate area. While many homes in this area have large garages, they do not appear out of place because the houses are larger as well. While a larger garage could be physically accommodated on the subject property, it would not be proportionally consistent with the house. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. It can be generally assumed that adding to the existing garage would have a positive impact on the value of the subject property. It is not known whether a garage three times larger than the home would have a negative monetary impact upon the neighborhood, even though it may be physically obtrusive. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage--at 720 square feet--is considered fairly typical by today's standards. While it does not have access for three vehicles, there is ample work area and supplemental storage space beyond that space needed for the vehicles. However with multi-car families being the norm rather than the exception, demonstrating the need for additional garage space becomes less of an issue. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the general criteria of approval for conditional use permits, as stated in Section 1125.01 Subdivision 3.b. of the Mounds View Zoning Code, can not fully be satisfied. These criteria and responses are as follows: 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Planning Commission Resolution 590-99 August 18, 1999 Page 3 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Adding on to a small garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities,parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. 3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Because the house to the east is set back further from the street than the house and garage at 2809 Woodale Drive, any expansion to the subject garage would be fully visible to people on both Woodale Drive and Silver Lake Road, in addition to the abutting property owners. There would be little if any screening of the proposed 54 foot long garage, the appearance of which would likely have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. 5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. A garage expansion in and of itself would be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code, although the Code stipulates that any time a proposed garage or garage expansion becomes larger than the house, City review in the form of a conditional use permit is required The intent of this provision is grounded in the concern that a garage should not excessively dominate the property or create a proportional imbalance. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, after reviewing the documents associated with this proposal, the possible adverse effects and criteria for CUP approval, does hereby recommend denial of the conditional use permit for a 1,296 square-foot garage due to the existence of adverse effects resulting from the expanded garage and the finding that the general criteria for approval cannot be satisfied. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Planning Commission Resolution 590-99 August 18, 1999 Page 4 Adopted this 18th day of August, 1999. Jean Miller, Acting Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\566-99\590-99PC.RES RESOLUTION NO. 5353 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVER-SIZED GARAGE AT 2809 WOODALE DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 552-99 Whereas, Tim Skeate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a 1,296 square- foot garage on property located at 2809 Woodale Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 12, Except the North 250 Feet,Knollwood Park County of Ramsey WHEREAS, there is currently an existing 720 square-foot garage on this property and a 400 square-foot home on this lot; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,400 square feet of garage/accessory building space on one lot; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Location Map e. Planning Commission Resolution 590-99 f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings in relation to Section 1125.01 Subdivision. 1.e, of the Mounds View Zoning Code, regarding the possible adverse effects of this proposal: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2809 Woodale Drive, as high-density residential. The existing use is not compatible with the land use designation,yet this will be corrected with the updated comprehensive plan. Garages and other types of accessory structures--like sheds and tool buildings--are allowed and even expected in this district,yet a garage that is triple the size of the house would be inconsistent with the second residential goal, which states: "Preserve the identity Resolution 5353 August 23, 1999 Page 2 and improve the quality and appearance of residential neighborhoods. " Allowing a garage that is three times as large as the house would create an obtrusive structural imbalance and could likely detract from the aesthetic appearances of the neighborhood. This proposal does conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are as large or larger than the subject property. There is a good mix of architecture present in the neighborhood, with some of the houses being older and some newer. The subject home, however, is significantly smaller than those in the immediate area. While many homes in this area have large garages, they do not appear out of place because the houses are larger as well. While a larger garage could be physically accommodated on the subject property, it would not be proportionally consistent with the house. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. It can be generally assumed that adding to the existing garage would have a positive impact on the value of the subject property. It is not known whether a garage three times larger than the home would have a negative monetary impact upon the neighborhood, even though it may be physically obtrusive. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage--at 720 square feet--is considered typical by today's standards. While it does not have access for three vehicles, there is ample work area and supplemental storage space beyond that space needed for the vehicles. However with multi-car families being the norm rather than the exception, demonstrating the need for additional garage space becomes less of an issue. WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the general criteria of approval for conditional use permits, as stated in Section 1125.01 Subdivision 3.b. of the Mounds View Zoning Code, can not fully be satisfied. These criteria and responses are as follows: 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Adding on to a small garage would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities,parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. Resolution 5353 August 23, 1999 Page 3 3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Because the house to the east is set back further from the street than the house and garage at 2809 Woodale Drive, any expansion to the subject garage would be fully visible to people on both Woodale Drive and Silver Lake Road, in addition to the abutting property owners. There would be little if any screening of the proposed 54 foot long garage, the appearance of which would likely have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. 5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. A garage expansion in and of itself would be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code, although the Code stipulates that any time a proposed garage or garage expansion becomes larger than the house, City review in the form of a conditional use permit is required The intent of this provision is grounded in the concern that a garage should not excessively dominate the property or create a proportional imbalance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council after reviewing the documents associated with this proposal, the possible adverse effects and criteria for CUP approval, does hereby deny the conditional use permit request for a 1,296 square-foot garage at 2809 Woodale drive due to the existence of adverse effects resulting from the expanded garage and the finding that the general criteria for approval cannot be satisfied. Adopted this 23rd day of August, 1999. Dan Coughlin,Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\566-99\5353 CC.RES Item No. io8 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: August 23, 1999 Type of Business: PH& CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public hearing and consideration of a conditional use permit request for an assisted living senior residential facility and rezoning of property located at 2670 County Road I Date of Report: August 20, 1999 Background: MSP Real Estate has made application to rezone the vacant Kraus-Anderson property located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High-Density Residential, and for a conditional use permit to construct and operate an assisted living senior residential facility. According to the applicant, the anticipated residents would be elderly and unable to care for themselves, some of whom may have Alzheimer's Disease or other forms of elderly dementia. The proposal would fall under the zoning requirements as outlined in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2, pertaining to "Nursing homes and other similar group housing". Attached is a statement of intent from the applicant along with a proposed site plan for the development for your review. Planning Commission Action: After holding a public hearing and reviewing this request at four of its meetings, the Planning Commission voted on August 18, 1999, to recommend to the City Council that the requested conditional use permit be approved, that the rezoning be approved, and that an ordinance amending the Code pertaining to such uses also be approved. The Planning Commission's resolution, Resolution No. 584-99; the rezoning ordinance, Ordinance 631; and the amending ordinance, Ordinance 639; are all attached for Council review and consideration. Rezoning Discussion: The existing Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View designates the subject property as an area intended for mixed-use planned-unit development. The comp plan is in the process of being updated, although the proposed land use designation for this area would remain the same. Either the present B-2 zoning or the R-4 zoning would be consistent with this designation. The present zoning of the parcel, which is across the street from Silver View Park and the Silver Lake Woods townhome development, would allow a commercial use with related traffic flows to MSP Rezoning & CUP August 23, 1999 Page 2 operate on this property. The types of commercial uses that would be allowable in the B-2 district would be retail establishments such as a liquor store, a music or record store, video rental, drug store, or a bakery/deli, among other uses. From a land use planning perspective, it might be more desirable to have a residential type facility in this location rather than a commercial use, for a number of reasons, which may include: 1. Would involve minimal on site activity 2. Would maintain a separation between the existing residential and commercial uses 3. Would potentially generate less traffic on Mounds View Drive 4. Would not require intensive lighting 5. Would be aesthetically pleasing from an architectural perspective The rezoning would also be consistent with the comprehensive plan in that a residential zoning would fit with the mixed-use designation and the fact that the it would relate to Goal#3 of the Residential goals and policies section of the plan, which addresses the provision of housing to meet the needs of all segments of the population, notably groups with specialized housing needs, such as the elderly. One of the issues brought up by the Commission would be the impacts to the tax base of this proposal. In speaking with the Ramsey County Tax Assessors office and using estimates provided by the applicant, staff was able to make some assumptions regarding the tax consequences. Most commercial properties are taxed at a 2.8 percent rate for the first$150,000 of valuation, then at a 3.8 percent rate for the valuation above $150,000. A senior assisted living facility would be classified as a type of commercial use and would be taxed the same way up to the first $150,00 in valuation. Because of a tax allowance for senior housing, any value beyond $150,000 would retain the 2.8 percent tax rate. Thus, for valuation above $150,000, there would be a net loss of 1 percent in tax capacity. The trade off, however, is that the proposed facility, according to the developer, will have an approximate value of$1,500,000, arguably much higher than most typical retail uses that could be built in a B-2 district. In all likelihood, the project being proposed would generate more taxes than a commercial use would. The Planning Commission has indicated a strong desire to construct the rezoning ordinance in such a way that if for whatever reason this proposed development does not come to fruition, the original B-2 zoning would be reinstated. In speaking with the City Attorney, it was discovered that this kind of provision is not allowed according to Minnesota case law. In addition, for a property to be rezoned, there would need to be an action taken in any event. Thus, if the project failed prior to construction, the Council would need to adopt a second rezoning ordinance if it desired to reinstate the original zoning. The apprehension in taking no action upon project failure, rests in the fact that with the proposed R-4, High Density residential zoning, an application could be made to construct more multiple family rental housing, of which the City already has an abundance. Because the owner of the subject property has indicated in writing that it too would want the property's original B-2 zoning to be reinstated if the MSP proposal fails, a section was added to the rezoning ordinance (Section 3 of Ordinance 631) which states that the Council may MSP Rezoning & CUP August 23, 1999 Page 3 act to rezone the property upon failure of the MSP proposal. Staff will consult with the City Attorney to verify the legality of this type of clause, who can address this at the meeting. In addition, the Planning Commission felt very strongly that the language in Section 1109.09 of the Code concerning"Nursing homes and similar group housing" should be amended to read, "Nursing homes and other senior congregate housing." A further change to that section of the Code would be to add an item"I" under Subdivision 2 to add a specific parking requirement to read, "The required parking ratio shall be one stall for each employee on the busiest shift plus one stall per every three beds, or fraction thereof" These changes are addressed in proposed Ordinance 639, attached for your reference. While the adoption of this ordinance is not integral to the approvals requested by the applicant, its adoption would clarify the Code as it relates to this type of use. CUP Discussion: The proposed use addresses a specialized and unique niche in the elderly and infirm care industry, the likes of which are not evident in this immediate area. The conditions of the use, according to Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2, are as follows: a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this District and are screened in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. b. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-29-96) c. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. d. The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic which will be generated e. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code f All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and all required operating permits are secured. g. One off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title is provided h. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord 590, 11-25-96) MSP Rezoning& CUP August 23, 1999 Page 4 The applicant has been apprised of these conditions and together with staff, have determined that all of the above conditions can be satisfied. The last condition, Item H, pertains to the adverse effects associate or resulting from this use, which the Planning Commission and Council are to consider in their decision. The adverse effects as they are appear in the code are as follows: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. Staff and the Planning Commission, which discussed and reviewed the merits of this proposal over the course of four meetings, feel that the impacts of this proposed use are minimal, at least in comparison to the impacts of a potential commercial use that could be developed. The use would generally be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the property is adjacent yet behind commercial uses, separated from the park and the residential area by Mounds View Drive. It does not seem probably that this project would depreciate the area in any way as it would seem to be a good fit for the area, acting as a buffer between the commercial corridor and the residential neighborhood. As stated above, the apparent need for such a use exists and as such would not adversely affect other similar uses as there are none. Site-Related Issues: Parking: Through the course of the many meetings at the Planning Commission, much testimony had been offered regarding the proposed use, most notable among the concerns of both the Commission and neighboring residents was the amount of parking being provided. The first proposed site plan showed parking in an amount to satisfy what our Code would require--four spaces plus one parking stall per every three beds. The proposed use would have 48 rooms with a possibility of 52 beds, so the Code would have required 22 spaces. However, after inquiring with other cities as to their parking requirements and polling actual assisted living facilities, and due to the Alzheimer care that would be provided, it was the Commission's consensus that the City's parking requirement would not adequately meet the facilities true parking demands. The developer was asked to increase parking to a level that would accommodate space for all employees on the busiest shift plus the additional one stall per three bed requirement. The resulting parking requirement, as directed by the Planning Commission, would be 31 stalls, which the developer has shown on the revised site plan, which is attached for the Council's review. Even with the 31 stalls, there would be events that would generate more parking that could be accommodated on the subject property--staff parties, holiday gatherings, for example. Because the Commission and residents were concerned about vehicles overflowing into the residential districts during periods of high usage, the developer secured an agreement in writing with the owner of the Silver View Plaza to allow for overflow parking with advance notice behind the shopping center. This area of Silver View Plaza's parking lot is not well utilized and would allow for a convenient overflow parking alternative during peak times. While on-street parking is MSP Rezoning& CUP August 23, 1999 Page 5 allowed on Mounds View Drive, the limited visibility associated with the curve of the street creates an unsafe condition which would be avoided with the overflow parking at Silver View Plaza. Access: The site plan before Council represents the wishes of the Staff, the Planning Commission, and residents of the area. One issue of concern was that there be two access points for this property to promote a better circulation and to facilitate emergency vehicle and truck movement. Because of the median between the eastbound and westbound lanes of County Road I in front of the subject property, access to the site from County Road I would be limited to only those eastbound vehicles. It was thought, then, that the access from Mounds View Drive should be made as an "entrance only" with the access onto County Road I be designated as "exit only". The anticipated number of vehicles added to Mounds View Drive as a result of this facility is expected to be low-- less than one hundred per day. Sidewalks: An issue was raised concerning a sidewalk on the property to allow for circulatory walking for residents and their guests, as well as to provide a paved access for people parking at Silver View Plaza during peak periods. Because the applicant does not control either the Silver View Plaza or SuperAmerica properties, there can be no requirement to install a walking path to connect to the subject parcel. The Council can, however, direct the applicant to at least discuss this possibility with the affected property owners. While this issue would be more appropriately discussed as part of the Development Review process, because a conditional use permit is being sought, a requirement can be placed upon the CUP to require sidewalk installation. The development review would identify in exact terms the location(s) of the sidewalk. Other Considerations: Because of the amount of research compiled, publication requirements and discussions held with the Planning Commission, this request will need final action no later than September 27, 1999, the last regular meeting before the 120-day deadline of October 2, 1999. Options for Action: A. If the Council determines that there is just cause and support to approve a conditional use permit and rezoning for this development proposal, the following would need to occur: 1. Direct staff to draft Resolution 5345, a resolution approving of a conditional use permit to operate a 48-room, senior assisted living residential facility, with stipulations if any are necessary. 2. Open the public hearing and introduce the first reading of Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning property located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density residential, either as presented or as amended. MSP Rezoning & CUP August 23, 1999 Page 6 3. If desired, direct staff to set a public hearing for the introduction(first reading) of Ordinance 639, an ordinance amending Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 of the City Code pertaining to conditional uses within the R-4 zoning district. (This clarifying ordinance could be adopted regardless of whether or not the requested CUP and rezoning are approved.) B. If the Council finds there to be sufficient and just cause to warrant denial of the conditional use permit and rezoning, the following would need to occur: 1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the conditional use permit and rezoning requests with appropriate findings of fact to support such a denial. 2. Direct staff as to how to proceed with regard to proposed Ordinance 639, the ordinance amending the language pertaining to the R-4 zoning district. C. If the Council feels as though more discussion is required and/or additional information is needed before it can render a decision concerning the conditional use permit and rezoning request, the following could happen: 1. Direct staff or the applicant to research and/or supply any necessary information to be brought back before the Council at your next meeting. 2. Continue the public hearing and table the introduction(first reading) of the rezoning ordinance, Ordinance 631, until your next meeting, which is September 13, 1999, or a meeting thereafter (insert date.) James Ericson, Planning Associate Attachments: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99 g. MSP Parking Analysis, dated 7/28/99 h. Letter from M & E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99 I. Letter from M & E Realty, Property Owner, dated 8/17/99 j. Letter from Dale & Bev Webster, 2755 Lake Court Drive, dated 8/13/99 k. Letter and report from HSR Associates, dated 7/27/99 1. Planning Commission Resolution 584-99 m. Ordinance 631 n Ordinance 639 • CF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION '•,,� ;( 't%j 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 'r't'a-ParcaeT044. 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Informatlon-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information �� � r^ (� Name of Applicant P I`EAL C4� v �• Telephone 6 tZ• 337. S/t/ci Address '4O1 No/t(H HtR-R S'iRff, cret{y0Fax 4t2.. 31c. qc--s y M(0,4tkcdtcr MM 4101 Atte : MtLO ?IA l ER—Tb Interest in Property(check appropriate box) • Owner of Property 0 Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager )( Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of Interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal e7 t, Address or General Location Sou rye t�.4 g r c , Clt ('.c,-rt a) Z : 1"1 pumps. tri cu.) (J R t v C Legal Description RA¢T ,4 , Int=G t-c rt , LA 41 y Property Identification#(PIN#) (e s a f Zee is 4 r-ar 7.1. S C ou,t4 o Zak t-e� #of Acres - es) Current Zoning Type of Application a Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 X ReZ,oning $250/acre; mm$250 max$15C0 ❑ Major Subdivision $250-$250 deposit* a Minor Subdivision $200 a Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees a PUD Amendment $350 Conditional Use Permit R-I, R-2$75;all others$250 a Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 a Cock Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;mm$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 o Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,11-2$25;all others$100 a Floodplain Permit $200 a Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property .' Undeveloped/Vacant o Single Family Dwelling Duplex/fwo Family Dwelling o Multi-family Dwelling Business/Commercial Establishment o Industrial Establishment C Other(explain) Property Classification o Abstract Torrens Description of Proposal Co ets•i-ruC+t v1 or a ''- - 0(14 Al z keim2r'S Cacti y lZezorte fLetoesl- : 12- 'j, t-I De_rtsJ IZes,tp,.,Aizt. C erLdc 4-co.4.2tl UseR��1 4. : Se64-ie.t ttoct. 0145.6d. 2_ " Nurs�Aft 1-loM.ec 'iRd St4,tar- Group l-toc. tn . - " BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRWAND ACCURATE. 4///mSignature of Applicant Name of Applicant(typed/printed) M Signaturei L e �i piK e R•� • of Pro / party Owner i1iL� l Name of PropertyOwner(typed/printed) "REAL,-., C . . Address of Owner S.2 3 S ou-r.t 8-n.j S1-1t.E E-r MINrJCAPo t.ts MAI ss'ln4_ ( csI S Phone Number of Owner (4 it) S o S - 2 c 2.1 A r+4 : t3Ruc.t 4.t• EntGELS/y, ■**************rip*********+k****+R*******************F************* m ******fr******.** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. e5 60-day Limit 120-day limit �L O- f vl Fees Paid: Account# Check# I Receipt it Application. 19 .00 //-:3Liae )10-A9.---)9 Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: N:IDATAZROUPS\COMDEVNFORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/95 06/17/1999 17:24 6123364565 MSP REAL ESTATE, INC PAGE 02 STATEMENT OF INTENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSISTED LIVING SENIOR FACILITY COUNTY ROAD I & MOUNDS VIEW DRIVE MSP Real Estate, Inc. proposes to develop a newly constructed Assisted Living Senior Facility on a 1.6-acre site situated on the southeast corner formed by County Road I and Mounds View Drive. The two-story building will be wood-frame construction over slab-on-grade foundation; gross building area will be approximately 31,860 square feet. The exterior will be maintenance-free vinyl lap exterior with brick trim below a pitched asphalt shingle roof. The property will have 23 surface parking stalls. The facility is designed to care for elderly individuals who are unable to live alone and do not require skilled medical care. Many of our potential residents may have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease or other forms of elderly dementia. The facility will be comprised of 40 units and will accommodate up to 50 residents. The finishes include carpeting/vinyl flooring; window coverings; and cable TV hookups. The pleasant homelike setting with parlors and private resident rooms provide a relaxed environment for both resident and family to enjoy. Residents will be encouraged to furnish their rooms with cherished mementos. Development amenities include a dining room, kitchen, community room, beauty/barber shop, activity room, whirlpool room, laundry rooms and fenced in green space with walking paths and gardens. The facility will be a Minnesota-licensed facility and will be staffed 24 hours daily. Services will include: Special Programs; Daily Activities to encourage and stimulate mental activity; attentive, highly trained and awake staff 24 hours a day....every day; careful staff attention to residents personal hygiene, health and medication needs; individualized care plans; daily home-cooked meals, and, extraordinary safety and security measures. The facility is well-located to service the aging—in-place needs of the two recently- completed senior buildings along Highway 10 and the to-be built senior co-op. .• .. .. .v, 4 1 .....1 N 0 7876 z 7865 7866 7867 7870 7869 17858 ao co 7853 N 8-2 7877 7854 7851 7860 7865 7852 W B c ,�co � 7870 N 7841 l. ) 7863 MIS 7841 7850 7855 7846 g -> 3r0 7830 0 7840 7835 7840 7829 (9 53 I:-3 ? 7820 33O 7815 7790 7815 7800 7817 R-4 ^O CI 7805 7780 7809 /op 7750 `Y )�' .to OO 7801 `i� 7809 7770 3 7801 7760 7797 B-2 _cp R...47800 7801 W 7751 7750 7787 ti^ 4. ^ 7767 7760 g 7741 7740 7767 1/4 ro ' 0 `L 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753 11 0` 7801 B-2 7755 7730 7721 7720 -27736 7745 7710 7711 772. r_ �, Lo) •• 771c 7715 N N Lo 7700 770e -R R-2 oY .A eeww e. .�aea • 7692 !. a � ,. r s c`oc › r2 m u°ii�i in 2553 inLOLOcn in in in in l6o PUS p EB-3 NNNN E NNNNN 2551 z 768E n N 2549.0 7680 Y ." N 257:J 768 2545 g B-4 2541 B-3 `f? 2539 2537 ti, SILVER VIEW h PARK °N st• o N r, 0Nom+ co. ii- . N 46 In el til -2 : o' oa -N •"N /i` rO cn ro r .r..,Sr 4 '552 'J_ o o N NI o n co o co T. — `L rt 550 to [_ N N N N"J N si OI CO o O CO '542 PF :to y0,N CO''''N d.':. '540 o j N oN r, ^�N oro �f '532 coon C)11" "'N N o n 0<0 m N / �+ ++N N N 411 530 N � / N 522 _ .°41 �'f7 j�ii�slIA to p 1. N"' N cogli -. y0,c0 c,iN, . N ,.+tp N 2 2N N �.. 13 , iiiik ,....ii,',.:::....=::::•:-.:::::,::::§1.:.%,. ,...„-zy,.....„:„..,......_ _ __:.....:-,..,....:;,;::::::.....,::::::::.....,...;,:.;::::::,....i.....,...::::::i: _ N ' ir, ...„:„„:.......,„.....,:::::„:„....,..''''''''.„.....:„,_,:„:„.....,.........F....,,........„,.....,..,„..x.:,.........,,,,,........„.....,...:.:„...,..„:„....:,:„.. InOD - O 444 gtri%::.:,:ii.?...:I...::..:::::...:::::::5::i':;-#, N Ct.wirsiti 7401: -._,. N 7442bik •::a:-r. ,_.. a _ pR PF - 7440 VIEW ,81- 44, 7408 •- 7390 0 740 7390ET I N on co co H�DG N co N N 7378 N • - - - r- SCO 11 arr C lIRT7350gr. �s N N ao I u9 735' �' " o N N ii 7 ,Za= n 7313 .. ........... r` Zoning Map Planning Case 559-99 Applicant: MSP Real Estate N4 Location: 2670 County Road I City of Mounds View • Location Map 6.-...ig :: l 111111111111111111.1111111 iiIt �� MI NM -I/114116:#116!41 Ia. .- # b.-- 111 ii£'3. ... £ ). _ 2670 County Road I " . �:i. r ik't• V.4;,$'0" :kms.. 0 ,` 3 x>. ,� aim 01, Ava l k:fi£%T ` k {i N„,,`, > „,k` k#k£ 1 :iL'u €i .i I k`ti k:kik:: ::� £b „ �I-- I4I Mki?Ek a ASN:`kzi `k.W., , ..,.£i .k# k I I .ts* vi » ::.5.. '401}M"--..f.'1".="1,,,...'........n6„.,£55 k z k '; ag�— k$k%kk>xUkk.. kk».< 0.3.t.i�:k.,,'1. :..:,»i` • ;£<:t<£uk:.+.:r; • ■■',,;jki tikkiiiii3 3i:.k`k^ kki:i.,-!.3..k,,,,kk.„,....3ii3: ..,,,;xyx...., �ikL'`ii£<Ik�ilZ:»kik: bkk;<�.3's>i�:.n:..r 2 k �:kk" Eli u Moo 111.8"V11Pir p bis, _ �A I k, 50 £a 3�'z??3iiii - illa ilin iiiiiiia U zig .... � T it 11111:__ „_ MSP Real Estate 11111114 = 11.` __ 2670 County Road lli".#1111. �.iIIIII�® ��ai:ulr— � � .IILIIIIIG :7,7,7,,,m-dour ;,,,�. .11mut 6721111®® ��.11111111: Conditional Use Permit and Rezoning ,I� "=== on "a"�-111 Planning Case No. 559-99 and 560-9) - _ _ H 'M;11111111.IIIIiI111111 uu ,c 10.-M„7,,. 1111 \. �-_is __ lm iu...mu111111111111111101 �� =I= 1111111111111111_ i �,:F � IIIIIillil. C= _1% 1111 /111111111111111111111�• ,, "'� �mj(�jn,a uununuun �I r_ = ”, 'SWM _ _� 2670 County Road —=GG , e,�r ..1111:- - �Al UIIII� r.= .. » ' - """- X` Properties Within 35I 0' =�.. ,. ; :ice. .,�� � r .� 11= 2 ?zu►�� 711 11111111111111 -1r : awl x l r E111111111 �:: =•1111111111 iIIIGIIIIIi-1=�®= JIIIIIIIIIIIM limittaL 1 ^/Alm�iIIIIii „Pt .1111, III=�'■� :11111 .,111111. 11 11111 MM I r...(451/ 16111�1116®MMM®€iii1® linlitre r Irai Mil�: C.: -i--1;;) Z � 111 • in Na z^ a M i / / / / / / // - --€ ��+- .i'16r-- i / :yam, ! i00 1 `-0 I / /' -- 7 / ' ././ ,,r--- CO q I / if,/ / 0 0 ....in 0 1 I / % 4• // I 1 � 1 / i 0 / I I I / I I �c 1 / / j. . / I•I • / r ' „� / I �i I 1 J g / ► I 1 r / ' I I ;I o I 1 r 1 1 I • 1 N Zt 1 I 5 i j .' ,K1 A ? 1 I 1 1 \\ I I F 11 i ,a \1 i �I 1 1\ \ \\ 42 1I �p \ \ •�• `` \\\ Z ifi I 1 I (k—D1 44: \\\Lk C //) I 0 NI ,.; ' n p. �1 J 11 , , d r Ce......44111:e...., ca 0,1ri r♦j�d0r _ 1' n” fes"D o w w 13 . D n m rn • 6 _ AESO TAT:c ` ?��iEC' ISP AcSISTED :APE 1 i. , TEE :up—''' _ : NEEP N & MOUNDS VIEW MN district 1 Ali `"IIHILLVIEW II II II ROAD II ( � =te OAKW000 OR. 0 0 /• N N, u t z a� o E O 3 _..J z / a = o — w o a w m W O U r- U Cr O 1,0L�1r,o`u 3 a r — Lel= OZ i N p/'riper cy r COUNTY m ROAD �L ® r � �i \�Q'+� f I itela ' N ' .Oe RG 0, _ d HC -' H B se :;: ...0 A.,, DR. I%tilt. PUD ' If Civic 1 MD /:11 '�� li1 Center - BRoNsoN .., .,,2,-.---,:-.-- -'''4Fi,- Alito.... -...7.!r:.,,,N MD „: • D d- 1.--. .Pc ,S1tCiaNO CT. 1 t • a a I : ~ `` .. i �.` .. ••• r % .N . ELi Z O I Cr Ol HC - 0�. r--•, proposed land use natural features* _ Flood plain/metro area LD Low density residential -al - + designated wetlands M D Medium density residential Steep slopes M-D/T Medium density - trailer park WV Tree massing H D High density residential *Approximate locations - subject to detailed review at time of proposed NC Neighborhood commercial • development HC Highway commercial IND Industrial S School C Church P Park/public facility 171 MEMO To: Rick Jopke From: Kevin Carroll Subject: Parking Analysis (MSP Project) Date: August 3, 1999 At your request, I recently contacted several facilities that provide"assisted-living" [AL] for seniors, in order to determine the adequacy of their current parking arrangements. Of the seven facilities that were on the list that MSP provided, I contacted the three that are located in the Twin Cities(the remaining four from the MSP list are in Wisconsin). I also contacted six other facilities, mostly in nearby suburbs, that have identified themselves as AL providers. For whatever it may be worth, the"Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory" that can be found on the Internet at www.eldersearch.com lists 22 AL facilities in Ramsey County and 24 in Hennepin County. I have attached a table that summarizes the information that I gathered. The conclusions that I have drawn from these facts are listed below. It is almost self-evident that the parking requirements for AL facilities are largely dependent upon the parking required for four groups: residents, staff, independent providers, and visitors. A. Residents: There is no widely-accepted, precise definition of"assisted living," and as a result, the range of services provided varies considerably from one facility to the next. Of the nine facilities surveyed, two seem to cater to those who need relatively little assistance, and 50% to 75% of their residents own cars. The other seven facilities provide a higher level of care, and 0% to 8% (average:5%) of their residents own cars. If the proposed Mounds View facility caters to seniors who are more"independent," 24 to 36 parking spaces might be needed for residents alone, which is more than the total amount of parking that has been proposed. If the Mounds View facility markets itself to those needing significantly more assistance, 4 spaces (roughly 8%) might be more than enough. B. Staff This issue is complicated by the fact that most AL facilities have 2 or 3 shifts of workers, and both part-time and full-time employees. Some AL facilities also "share" workers with affiliated and/or attached "independent living" and/or"skilled nursing" facilities. However, the three surveyed facilities that had under 75 residents [20, 40 and 54] seem to require no more than two to five FTE (full-time equivalent)positions per shift. By comparison, the five"mid-range" size facilities [75-108] surveyed seem to require, on average, a maximum of 10-15 employees for a shift, if it is assumed that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total FTE positions are required for the main(day) shift. C. Independent.Providers : Some AL facilities use their own internal staff to provide routine services, and external sources to provide more specialized on-site assistance such as medical care or physical therapy. If the Mounds View facility intends to use such independent providers, the amount of parking that they require should be determined. For example, the two Rosewood Estates facilities in Roseville and Maplewood (105 and 100 units, respectively) have 4-10 independent care providers present at any given time. D. Visitors: This is the variable that is the hardest to predict. Some AL residents have many regular visitors, and some never have any. However, most AL facilities seem to have 2-5 larger events per year(summer picnics, Christmas parties, etc.) to which the families and friends of the residents are invited. It does not seem reasonable to require a facility to provide sufficient parking to accommodate all of the guests at such events, because for the remainder of the year those spaces would be unnecessary. Still, "overflow" parking, even though rare, has to go somewhere. The facilities that deal with it the most effectively are those that have either a shared parking arrangement with a nearby school or business or an agreement with the local municipality that upon reasonable advance notice, short-term parking will be allowed on nearby residential streets on a handful of occasions during the year. Based upon the preceding conclusions, the most critical questions would seem to include the following: • What level of assisted living will be provided by the proposed Mounds View facility? That is, will the objective be to attract active, independent seniors who need relatively few services (and who might therefore be more likely to drive and own cars), or dependent/disabled seniors who need a high level of assistance (and who might therefore be less likely to have or need their own transportation)? • What is the maximum number of"internal"staff members that the proposed Mounds View facility would expect to have on-site at any given time? • Will the proposed Mounds View use any "external,"on-site, independent service providers--and if so, what is the maximum number of such individuals who would be present at any given time? • Will periodic "overflow"parking be allowed on nearby residential streets, and/or is there a nearby property owner or business that would occasionally allow its parking spaces to be used in such situations? My personal assessment is that the 22 spaces provided on MSP's site plan may be sufficient if less than 10% of the residents owned a car, and if the facility anticipated a"typical" internal staffing level(no more than 5 employees per shift), and if few (no more than 3-4 per shift) independent providers were utilized, and if acceptable arrangements could be made for occasional off-site parking. a) O g N 1 c� W .. 3 0 , co cd po 46, d o ., �, a 41 fffflaRa *4 0 'El o o f op 11) o x 4) MSI E a) o:POW e � a U U ;r oo a) ti o ' ".5 @ y ., k eL .. .". SQ• oti � 003y c d N0H. a .. U y — wy .v � 'aabo, _ OO'b bo p :U . c ann A 4- nO - .- p 3 p ti 0 p pq {ma d p . fn 0 H N ^�U VJ .p • o r.�•: v •+'2 e) E .0 ct Ir N3aq •E 2 '' tW "G " kls° N O .5 dO la HH > CA . Y'5 -o .0 >, 1_, 44 .+ N . p •.y p' o c1 9 N r'C. ~" - N a) > cw o� Z 3 a� .4 V y .45-Igg4M0 el) w 07i `. dh = etd4NH .D .0 x . y ›,'fid C H .b t=1 -0 .p F a) a) y •00 ..c w o y � . 3V•n di,) 8c• % • ,. = % o6 c 1 .vb 4) ai ai I -Wttco E ' .. 1=1 `.e .- 8 6 0 H W X _A .. zW z _._. ..H F F U Nwa I w M..4 7 N v, in ' v, ''w V .� 4 co 0.0 vr) goV Ai ., g ° 's m . p a M ti aet p - •aei. O - a) M y aMrrmo ' " •� .O Q N VM •a ,.0 •pigi0 �v- rar N r0 r -' >. L Cr.gcP0 ..::.::::.::.::.:.. ��// .. ....::.:.ilii. �:.::::::-:: ::: .................... ... :::::::::::: :;::::::::::::: ::....;....;...:::.::: ::::....ilii: ...... ........................ ..............................................................:....::::::::::::.:::::.:..............::::::::::: !' :::::L'iiiiiiiiii ;; iiiiiiiiiieiii:ilii€ :i: W::::::lar::::::::::::_ :: :::, ::: :::::::::::::::::::::.....:........... : ::-il ...:...... ., : ...:: : :.::::::::::::::.:::::..::..:::.:.:::.:::.::::::::::::::::::::::ilii:-::::::::::::::::as:::::: :::::::::: i: ...............................j iii::: ..... ........ ...... ...............................................:...;..;;;;:::::::::::::::::::::::::+.:r.::ai..k: . .. �::- .:::. : �. ::�::::::.n:::::•�:::::::::::::::::::�:::: :::::::�::::::::.:::.::.......................: :::::: :-::: :::�::::::::::::� :+�ii :: €€ :::::.. :::::�p. :.C,:::::::- :_ft,,,,,,:::e:::: :::: :,,,,,::,,,,,.::::ilii::::,:::::::.3..... ..,:::: :::,. : ..,,,, :::—.:•:::::::::::::..::::: : ...,:::::. :::::ail::::L1:::::ao:::[=[-:::: !suipA:::::::::::� :::::::::::::::::::ii;i:: ::[ii,.,, . a) d+:::: :::: ,„ :::::::::::::::::::::: : :. ::::: :::..._t::::: •::: ::: :::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::ilii:::-::: :::::::::::::::: :: ..a!..::::::::aa:s:::::a::;:::;: ::::::.r::: ..ilii :::. _:: :::: %.5 : ::::::::::::::::::i:::::,::::a::::[:::a:: :,:a-�::,tQ: C::::. ilii: ::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::: - ox:: ::: ,:::: :::v:e::::::::::,::::l::::::::::,::::::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Y::: v� u: riEd:::::::::::::::::::ilii: :.�:�: ilii: �::::::::.�.::: :::::ail::::::::::::::: :� :::::::,:::: ::::::t:::::ee!�:::s: :::::st::::: :::��::: :::::::::::::::::::_:::::: -+siii :* :,:: :: :::;:iiia[[!=aetae:[;tt:::e:::::t::::::::�:::: ::::::::::::::: illi: -:::::...::::o::::: :::.. ::: ::::::::::::::::::-,:::: ::e.-:i� � : ,-::::::aQ::� :°?::t:: : ::,:: ::::::::::::::::::: ::ilii:.: �:::�::..t!::::: ::::�}::::_::::;::;:::::=:a::::::aa::::: r� "d -i lii ::::::::::::::::-:::::::: :::: ::::: :::�::::: ,::.. :::::::::::::: ea 1 cwd Q', .p �• •� L' EH y y N jp' et .0 '8 CC NNy ptib g ,d1ooes i� gooe? WO o" 8v O b' oa F :g Q N o 'p ,. ooti .0 ) a W •-, tiaaco Ir) a b :� es .c 3 > i En 3 0 .x ,0 ba3ybcis y ° °'r. 0oVI 0• '5 • '° • O a L. S . ,dON.b ,N, 5 2 N N E Ng 'a a ° 8 i a ° 0. pd2oOL U , o a a: c o . o VI x c • Zf, col O y - ' w 8 d C w Oa g 'b N ^7 ty 2 •00 S' �' a� bop'15 " •N `2 c1 cd e. g M 5 a y .c �0 'S 5J. i o b d N N C a. G L y4a O4; E ,3 ,,„ o ,,, .c oo o a, o •° ° o o fq a :.q cv ra,.4'0 .Y 0 •° 0. Ts vin, y a h 9+ 52 O " fr ••••• d 14 U -5 Q cd N V) Cd .11 pO N Q, 0. ° •pd • fS > b 9. d U ,0 .r7, Ua v . • g ,' ;.-. N N .L 'b O C .d D; C • W TU. H .p E. y,' .4 p 0° u A p 'Q o v cW y " � y ti v ao .4 E.) ti d •� a> Q D,.0ad ' � ,c, '..z..! N?' .. W � +ra -oo � . EmH4 :: w eo ; m : >, cd . 2 a ° = a oN 1 8C ° •> d o o E •5 a w O NN .o pi; .. cN 5) ca. a N ... g . E y y 03 O < a E P, o a oo H .'�... V s3..0 0 ' .°.? 'Do?: V a.M .-. • 0 y "c) ., 11111.Z. >'+ Za on Z , W r. V1 O rT,� N W M•y `� en in et 44 etW .4, N i e i•+ in r., H 'la d ii e-. v 0 in O in v M in y,.,., a H a 4 to ° {�.. pto O ii +Np O N o ) vi -+.r y 4.1 .-1 •5 w p oo en v, CIN v v, a OD,n •5 m .-. N in in O s N is O Z b i0 e y0.1 cha°+ cD p cc N hr C v`, ,A. N > i."N w g ,1 .yam 5).43O pp C. E ..r 14d cp v)a in W A S Z o �iCdii��i�i � i!�i``ihiil i m..... .................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::»�:!:t!t::::=_s!tt=_t:t!!:::t:::t:::::!:::::;::: i!'ti':€':;ii'ii':ii?i''sE€ iii=f'=:'ii':i':i':i':'iiii ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .....,........ ....... ... ... .........................::�:::��:::::::::::::::::::::A:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: : :::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::�:::,:::::::��:::=;::!:::!::::its!!!t!!!!!s:�i:t!!!!s!:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!t!t ::::::06.....:::::...::::::::::::::,:::::::::::::::::....................... .. :::: ::::: ::�:�!!!!:!!!!:!ili:'!'i'iiiii;:::!i�i�`:i'i'!!::ii:! !:!!!!!!!!!!!a!!:!!:! �!!!!!;! :::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::- _:..:.... ...................................... iffiiiiil .4 ... ..........11..11............ ........... ....:ss... ...........................a::::. :::::o::::,::::::::::::::::::::!!!!:!!:!!!:::::!!:!!!:!::::! : :: .::.s: ::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::: -1111:-'�.::::::::::::�:::::-_..::: :::::w:::::- ::::+.:::::::::::::::::::::::: .:::�::::. ::::::.::_:..:.............................1111.::...:..::::::::::::::::::�+: :::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: �'g ., o 0.1 m b ' - .0 :y moo q ,.. . m .co . on 5 ,. d. m w, b(1 w o vA 4 tv y0n0x en 0 •tb8eo a , b wv 1da14 Uo a a oob 2 c0 o 2 1oi4' Gia.t ° m > .,, m .5 0 .0 .. p •pit .o m . O 4 y * .r. al y y � � " 3 '1, - m .0' a., w " cV a, -54o•owNvooa aw p 0 t, oo ed " .r ?, {64co S0 p„ LL E ›'6 V> .� ani gN 4" e1 ' r.. R. g rn ta ag S E —., 4 , E . „.g •.tea = g -•"= •.r4 " . gig > 8 'a• 3 o w° 3 .D � Uc' ..0 ak, _ � b a o oZg E. m" �+ z W M 0 0 � N N ^ m w e-1 v7 �W o w „ ,, men • iDw .¢.0 0.n g�. M Bei N ,p R. _O p tom ' C ^-Nd3 O w44 p M . In Q0 - � co4, -(5 V � en 0 O Q et — C'ri . M0 M — N Pi 1- ba 0, 2 d -; U • a •yN Hq en 8 te; 0 c.) cn 7.t" ,c .w ; '1/42 ,fl W A 'o ai eii:tiiiiis i€ 2iiiiiiiiiii;ii;i:::viii::_! .-.. =_[i:a::::a:!a::a:::::aa::s: ;;ii: �i't�itiiiiiiiisi'siiiii�i�iiii'=_'iiiiiiiiiiiiiii•.'d��iiiiiiii=iisiiii�`:iiiii€k�iiiiiii - -- .:::LE[t[[:[ .....t:[!i!: :[:l ::a.�:.:st:!!:!t::!::::::-:!=:::.::ss::::::::::,.:::::::. : : !:::: :!:::::::::::::!::::€:[:::::::!:tai[!a?€::: ~ 41% !!! ::. _ R:t::::: ili;iiiii;iii iii iiii :1Asii::!ii::s :Ew :: !!!!:m :[! ;iiliiiis'iiiiii"MA : : : H: : :_:.:. =: t!t ::::.:P'4 :i€iii sii! '! ii '"'' "e:1: ki" 'i' iiiiiiii"""-"" .. Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 1 of 3 ANN-71/. Senior R esources e, ::'*... -,,,,,:,-,,::,•,,,,,',:z, tione,E-Itliait la's ,.. •,•,,, ',`,/;Yr-.4.--, P Rap a CONSULTATION ! Search tar ktividets) 1 SENIOR SITE :.•.:*,:g;* /./0.,,;"2 Rt. ,',' ,''. CONNECTION tThe philosophy of Assisted 112:11111. ,Allk, Living (AL) is to promote * . . participation_ . resident self direction and k ADveur ISING in decisions that ----- --- -- -- \ -- ,... g .'. emphasize emphasize independence, Comma'Us . individuality, privacy, dignity, tiiir,47,rw';''-,,V, - .;, - . - - . • .,,,,,--• and choice while providing '11 'ri: care as needed. A typical L - 'Is „.P, - „.- ,0&...x.,...„„.m • , , ,tk.„.., Slagt<''X'„iirrd- -aft, resident would have his own .. .__T-7,-. 1.-A- ..,:f.,,,' 1,p.wv.,. ,',Eilitk ' 0$, apartment, set his own schedule, and ASSISTED LIVING t"rraMI7:';,''-',777r, participate in activities and social programs as he wishes. Coupled with the opportunity to ,,,,:-<P,-;'7iitttt'''''''''':r::-' receive assistance with daily tasks, the -;01:,,,,,:„.r;1-7, g•t,'"r1•!*.:::‘,t4411 MASSiSted individual is able to maintain an optimal level ,:,- 51:4:, LiVillo of independence and therefore a better - .....` . :'? ",... ---Tgi teal ' 0 ,,,, ,,..--.„-- -,,,,,,-;.:-..-,_-„,„, . quality of life. Some other terms used to f‘ -a t..0 ' kr ,,- 4.%&,‘,..11, , ilif denote AL, depending on the region, are , c*rses,T.r,,,-,t ,,--.,:k,„ I ......, , , ... Phoebe custodial care,""residential "personal ,‘' 0,,0:1,' 1,.., ,.,, care," and "adultfoster care". i e ' tl %•^,:(:v "Assistance" can be defined as help with any"activity of daily living," which includes v,e.!!"0‘,•: il,:,, ,y,,,, bathing, grooming, administration of medications, transferring, toileting, laundry, cleaning, and meal reminders. However, keep in -.,..?L;;`,.,,,•,:` mind that all AL facilities are different, and offer varying degrees of services. One facility may offer only limited assistance, while another may offer more comprehensive care. Also, AL regulations differ by state, but across the board are designed to provide assistance, not skilled care. Skilled care entails services that can only be rendered by a doctor or licensed nurse; an advanced level of care that would usually be found in a nursing home. AL is most appropriate for the individual who needs some assistance, but is not quite ready for nursing home. AL facilities offer three meals a day, social programs and activities, and many other services for the residents. Oftentimes, individuals flourish and "come alive" once they enter these facilities after a period of http://www.eldersearch.com/resources/assisted.html 8/2/99 Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 2 of 3 living alone with little or no socialization. AL environments tend to be very home-like and are geared toward the comfort of the residents, often resembling a beautiful apartment complex or hotel. Costs range from $1,500-$4,000 per month, depending •. on the facilities' ranking, location, services, and care options. Although some facilities accept state funding, AL is ordinarily privately funded. AL is a wonderful option in terms of providing an elderly relative with assistance in a safe environment that offers plenty of activities and socialization. The following are some questions you may want to ask when visiting these facilities: • How many levels of care do you have and how are they categorized? • Aside from the monthly, are there any additional costs involved? • What does the monthly payment include? • What happens when Mom runs out of money? Do you accept state funding? If not, what Happens? • How many nurse's aides are scheduled on each shift? How are weekends handled? What is the ratio of care- givers to residents? • Is transportation included? • What is your policy on dying? Do you allow Hospice services? • What are your limitations regarding the needs of the resident? • Do you allow wheelchairs? • Do you allow oxygen? • Do you take residents with incontinence problems? Home I Free Consultation I Senior Site Connection I Chat Advertising I Contact Us Assisted Living I Independent Living I Life Care Community Skilled Nursing Facilities I Home Heakh/Eauiament Adult Day Care I Alzheimer's Resources&Support Hospitals I Hospice I Elder Law Attorneys Geriatric Physicians I Geriatric Care Managers Retirement Planners I Counseling Services I Health Insurance http://www.eldersearch.com/resources/assisted.html 8/2/99 Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 1 of 4 for R 5en saources14.1.67,14341.111111111 11, •rkti. 1/441,1441 WORM NIQR1 E Your search has returned 22 companies. FC: g grils EnADAPTED LIVING PROGRAM Cwce�rusu (612)698-5126 �r 1875 BEECHWOOD AVE C CONTACT Us SAINT PAUL, MN 55116 2028 AMY JOHNSON RESIDENCE °* (612)227-0574 ,.. 89 VIRGINIA ST A Y 1/ ,,€t SAINT PAUL, MN 55102 2113 e << a III � CATHOLIC CHARITIESq. p`...:c ` '-.;�.r.=3 . . 1 (612)646-0934ReabartAtIkanWONN 2300 WYCLIFF ST SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 1218 COMMUNITY TEMPORARY CARE SVC • (612)646-7007 1821 UNIVERSITY AVE W# 165 SAINT PAUL, M1\1. 55104 2801 DAYTON RESIDENCE (612)228-1051 740 DAYTON AVE SAINT PAUL, MN 55104 6657 DUNEDIN SUPPORTIVE LIVING (612)224-8922 469 ADA ST SAINT PAUL, MN 55107 2303 • GREATER HEIGHTS (612)298-8716 http://search.eldersearch.com/search.cfm 8/2/99 Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 2 of 4 139 WESTERN AVE S SAINT PAUL, MN 55102 2916 HAMLINE ASSISTED LIVING PRQG • LP (612)647--9133 777 HAMLINE AVE N SAINT PAUL, MN 55104 1362 MOUNDS PARK RESIDENCE (612)776-7170 908 MOUND ST SAINT PAUL, MN 55106 6332 NEW FOUNDATIONS EASTSIDE (612)771-7565 1161 WESTMINSTER ST SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 3652 PINEVIEW RESIDENCE (612)227-1333 69 MILTON ST N SAINT PAUL, MN 55104 7028 PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF MN INC (612)631-6200 1910 COUNTY ROAD D W SAINT PAUL, MN 55112 3503 RAVOUX ASSISTED LIVING PROGRAM (612)227-6853 280 RAVOUX ST SAINT PAUL,MN 55103 2328 REDEEMERS ARMS (612)224-7665 313 DALE ST N http://search.eldersearch.com/search.cfm • 8/2/99 Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 3 of 4 SAINT PAUL, MN 55103 2434 ROSEWOOD ESTATE *1-21770-1111 • 1200 LAKEWOOD DR MAPLEWOOD, MN 55119 7601 ROSEWOOD ESTATE USA INC (612)631-3825 1995 OAKCREST AVE ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 2605 ROSEWOOD ESTATES (612)482-1611 2750 VICTORIA ST N • ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 2076 ROSEWOOD ESTATES (612)698-1111 750 MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD S SAINT PAUL, MN 55116 1006 ST ANN'S RESIDENTIAL SVC INC (612)649-0671 1218 EDMUND AVE SAINT PAUL, MN 55104 2522 ST ANN'S WAIVERED SVC PROGRAM (612)649-0103 1239 SHERBURNE AVE SAINT PAUL, MN 55104 2530 1 2 JNEXTI 'New Searchl Home I Free Consultation I Senior Site Connection I Chat Advertising�Contact Us http://search.eldersearch.com/search.cfrn 8/2/99 Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 1 of 1 Senior R esourcesr3s •.,:._ , r.,S, 3:,... `.5,1 •` . `6 i' iy 3•:RMFes �1 Y t CoPis JLTATIONaye Y . W4 - Your search has returned 22 companies. IP ENIaR Sir E CONNECTION €> 11` WELLINGTON APARTMENTS C ADVEffr ISINf (612)699-2664 2235 ROCKWOOD AVE , i b 8 ' • IA g CoNrAcr US SAINT PAUL, MN 55116 3175 WILDER ASSISTED LIVING '` .:,„ (612)221-9821 Ta, pm;: '' 20 EXCHANGE ST E :110 .'''_ SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 5200 litif:` l cu : " .. :q !New Searchl u. _..: Home I Free Consultation I Senior Site Connection I Ciat. Advertising I Contact Us Assisted Living I Independent Living I Life Care Community Skilled Nursing Facilities I Home Health/Equipment Adult Day Care I Alzheimer's Resources&Support Hospitals I Hospice I Elder Law Attorneys Geriatric Physicians I Geriatric Care Managers Retirement Planners I Counseling Services I Health Insurance ®1998 ElderSearch.com.All rights reserved.Disclaimer http://se.../search.cfm?eld=1&state=mn&county=Ramsey&area=assisted&start=21&action=searc 8/2/99 Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 1 of 1 Senior R esources ' : 5 ik. ,• ".'„-- -•*,.$4 Fiera CONSULTATION 2. • .._. s' Your search has returned 1 companies. iiiiili'Aillitt.4%;:,•:,.,:i. ,:,...A..!f: a SENIOR air E . CONNECTION , - ,.....''...--- :'''... . •:. ,,,,,.. ',;:1;4,W4MAtiLik404ffierg011 C=11111111111 WHISPERING PINES CARE CTR „...... "1 "'imw•451.e.A j.,,,xmv., IrAo—v—Effr—,5-ING--- ''' -(612)576-9524 - 15 c'Ai*i :''i:‘•*:',;;•:Lt...=.1/4,5-t,''„!.....,---,:-. .•.-43 ' 2153 7TH AVE , ANOKAMN 55303 1770 C CONTACT US ';.-,-..•.,',‘.....ft--4,1fetwiir, :L..,.!,:.--$ •-•,i'', ,'i. •`,'n:2.:!teeitgi ...:•::S:...:',1...:...•:S;•::::,.;:..'-‘,. .,,,,.....,*:. ,,,,, T...'",".:: '-5.::..... -,..:::...0-1.4zIoAixwirY.:fg,.0 ..:::.: ,-• Home I Free ConAsdvultaerttliosninlaSlecnoionrtaSc:t,upson.' lot I ghat / iz.:.:i.,•,-,.-•-- -:.„..:.;..:,•,,,wo.xwmfm 7,..-IfitisOft-."•..-114i1:ii:vm.g: .zoA..,-,---.---.-,.-- -:....."..;;,:::3:ipigii*.wei 4 , , Assisted Living I Indepenclent Living.I •e -re Co 1 lui ?;....,-0-4-timplammiii,47,.tem ..„:,..,...e.,„.„.,-4,: .......,„_....,"..-44-: l; r 's,, Skilled Nursing Facilities I o e Hea _L.Ea:usii;..eonrt . ii ' i'l- \ ' ' Adult Day Care I Alz eimers Resourc- *:- ..-f---kK.i,..Tk.•....':'..-5.-:r.,:jk: z.....,-4..IN .1•-. :4'.( '4/v .. ,-.1_, 1 Hospitals I Ho.sciscel GI Geriatric Physician • , e:aetric C,Ae.,oranea;t-ers .7 v / Retirement Planners I Counseling Services ,Health Insurance ,-..!:':,:`,.••,;:,,:.***cay.:Cat i'''.1.,-•-' ( .44.agitr'-'''.;:?., .Y.,r.:.•_'-,A,-_tr.t,!...--.': / CO 1998 ElderSearch.com.All rights rese ed.Disclaimer / ,CZEkaYMOVIte„ .A.. ..,!5,A•.•..- ... li. • i V ---)[? • U- 1 Z- — 7 — Z----2–'51 (Iiic,c 6 ( SCC7 ) 7-7-775-72 8/2/99 http://search.eldersearch.com/search.cf1n Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 1 of 4 .0"'"It. . • . 5 esources a y' y EI �C} f R giro! i 'f eFr . CONSULTATION i — IOR E Your search has returned 24 companies. °. s. CONNECTION ''.z.,-7, ,.w� �.Wit. �F�' - w gib: STH AVENUE HOUSE v 8 S CADDvERrisING (612)866-0053 k P� iiki «... 6527 STH AVE S #' . C CoNrAcr US RICHFIELD, MN 55423 1644 ALDRICH BOARDING CARE :. v$, HOME h ''' , A .,,,,/ (612)825-4488 RA.,,-.#'177,-fi �,, t 3101 ALDRICH AVE S t e 1 Vyi; ' 1, . . ' 'iMINNEAPOLIS MN 55408 2805 iaE. , n ,f e#1 :.:. '" ANDREW CARE HOME (612)333-0111 .,Osa1 ,, 1 Ian:_:.. `< 1215 S 9TH ST MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 1710 BIRCHWOOD CARE HOME (612)823-7286 715W31STST MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 2915 BRYANT HOUSE (612)479-3655 5515 BRYANT ST MAPLE PLAIN, MN 55359 9446 BYWOOD EAST HEALTH CARE (612)788-9757 3427 CENTRAL AVE NE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55418 1221 CHRISTIAN UNION HOME (612)781-4871 http://search.eldersearch.com/search.cfm 8/2/99 Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 2 of 4 1507 LOWRY AVE NE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55418 3859 ELDER HOMESTEAD (612)933-1752 11400 4TH ST N MINNETONKA, MN 55343 3603 EVERGREENS-EARLE BROWN FARMS (612)566-1495 6011 EARLE BROWN DR BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 2532 FIRST AMERICAN CO (612)929-2122 5100 EDEN AVE EDINA, MN 55436 2337 GARDENS AT GIDEON POND (612)948-3000 10030 NEWTON AVE S BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 2939 - GRAND AVENUE RESIDENCE (612)824-1434 3956 GRAND AVE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55409 1535 JONES HARRISON FOUNDATION (612)920-2030 3700 CEDAR LAKE AVE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 4240 MAINSTREET LODGE (612)379-8454 909 MAIN ST NE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 1958 http://search.eldersearch.com/search.cfm 8/2/99 Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 3 of 4 MERIDIAN MANOR (612)473-3200 163 WAYZATA BLVD W WAYZATA, MN 55391 1562 NU-WAY HOUSE INC (612)871-7568 2200 1ST AVE S MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55404 3401 NU WAY HOUSE INC (612)872-0502 2518 1ST AVE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 4317 PARKSHORE PLACE SENIOR APTS (612)925-6231 3663 PARK CENTER BLVD SAINT LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 2532 PRAIRIE SENIOR COTTAGES (612)897-9009 1660 HIGHWAY 100 S SAINT LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 1529 SIGNE BURCKHARDT MANOR (612)872-7009 2533 1ST AVE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 4342 1 2[NEXT) New Search' Home I Free Consultation I Senior Site Connection I gig Advertising I Contact Us Assisted Living I Independent Living I Life Care Community Skilled Nursing Facilities I Home Health/Eq_uipment http://search.eldersearch.com/search.cfm 8/2/99 Elder Care and Senior Housing Directory Page 1 of 1 _ Senfor R esources . ffc CONSULTATION � 4 IE Your search has returned 24 companies. p , x SENIOR CONNECTION SOUTHSIDE CARE CTR l p ADvair nude (612)872-4233 4a4..7. 71. YY T' 2644 ALDRICH AVE S CONTACT Us MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 1307 pact a TEACHERS PARK AVENUE RESIDENCEx 1 :::.:... A s nti-- , . (612)871-4574 2625 PARK AVE ' MINNEAPOLIS MN 55407 1016 aa WALKER ELDER SUITES :8 ":: (612)835-8351 ; °` asmr 7400 YORK AVE S MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55435 5628 WALKER PLACE (612)827-8500 3701 BRYANT AVE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55409 1051 JPREVIOUSI 1 2 fNew Searchl Home(Free Consultation I Senior Site Connection I C at Advertising I Contact Us Assisted Living I Independent Living Life Care Community Skilled Nursing Facilities I Home Health/Equipment Adult Day Care I Alzheimer's Resources&Support Hospitals I Hospice I Elder Law Attorneys Geriatric Physicians I Geriatric Care Managers Retirement Planners I Counseling Services I Health Insurance ®1998 ElderSearch.com.All rights reserved.Disclaimer http://.../search.cfm?eld=1&state=mn&county=Hennepin&area=assisted&start=21&action=searc 8/2/99 CT � 2 " 0 0 I = 1- O I- C9 i- C9 h- N Z Z W Z W Z W Z W h = m as as as a I- Z Z cc W Iz jx O wo = H LLWU. U- � Z f- W W w 5 w w w 0 co Q -- � I- en' Q •v) U QQ 0 F w a 000 000 000 MD- LL _ I 0JW 0c( LL u_ 0 < ± W Q 0 0 ce O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1- Q � ? z z zOw z (7 Z (� � z 1 0U) Y Y 2Q0 YQo YQ (c) Y � i i ca 0cc O0 O0 ix0.O IX w 0 Q Q < 0 I- < 0 I- < 0 I- Q 0 Etz a. a.. tLOu, a. Oto a0in a. z H CV 0> Co CO o 0 0 r- W E I- 0 a e- 0 o Q Q o ti Z Z 0 10 0 1.0ti in W NI= F- W _ Z J fcLQLI- a > Z ccQ Q ? 0 Q WE5 0 0 10 co C9 C9cc a � •� T �) 10 = Z U) U) I- 00 Z ^ N- N N N w 4 O u. 0 0 0 a 0 � w0 W0 WC9 W0 WC9 WC9 W0 0 ILI J F- Z I- Z I- Z I- z F- Z I- Z I" Z Z o 0 - > (75� > V) 5 u)rn j j U) j � 5 J < < < "c"' , Q < < Q 0 W U) W z0 Lu co 2 Z Q co co U) v1 Q I- 0 W Z z z z W W O _ y 0 Q Q � 0 (jZ w = v) 1 V O O 0 g co a Zw0 fO _, > wJ 0 O z O W Vi Z HU - 0zi wY U) 0 U) Y 0 ft H Y - 0 w _-_-; „,> ,r W W � W Ou. 0 Ou- J Ou. Z 0 Q rt r-- Qrn0 Y � tX wmp wma wCQ 00 d CO N Z W N C ch Q U) 0 LL U) 0 Q U) 0 > CC u. 08/05/1999 13:04 6123364565 MSP REAL ESTATE, INC PAGE 02 May 24, 1999 City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Application for Rezoning of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No.414, By MSP Real Estate,Inc. ("MSP") Dear Sir/Madam: M&E Realty Co., as the owner of the above-described property("Property"),has entered into a purchase agreement with MSP for the sale and purchase of the Property. MSP's obligation to purchase this Property is contingent upon obtaining rezoning to allow for their development of an assisted-living facility. In order to allow MSP to obtain the rezoning of the Property,we have executed the application for rezoning. This Ietter is submitted in compliance with the City's requirement that a letter of permission from the owner of the Property be submitted with the application for rezoning. If MSP does not subsequently acquire title to this Property, we would prefer that the current B-2 zoning be maintained. Therefore,we request that if the City approves this application for rezoning,such approval be conditioned upon MSP acquiring fee title to the Property. Sincerely, M& E REALTY CO. t By: _ .�.t Bruce W. Engelsma, ' esident cr 08/18/99 16:45 K-A DEL). & FIN. CO. MPLS 002 Atr�,� M & E REALTY CO. August 17, 1999 Mr. Michael Lewis MSP Real Estate 401 North Third Street Suite 440 Minneapolis, MN 55401 • Re: 2670 County Road I Mounds View,Minnesota ("Property") Dear Mr. Lewis: M&E Realty Co. ("M&E"), as the owner of the Silver View Plaza Shopping Center ("Shopping Center"),has received your letter of August 5, 1999,and your request for permission to use the parking lot at the Shopping Center to accommodate overflow parking from the cider--care residential facility proposed for the above-referenced property. M&E is willing to allow such overflow parking when parking on the Property is not otherwise available,but only at such times and within such area(s)of the Shopping Center parking lot to be designated by M&E. M&E will have the right to deny any request by MSP to use the Shopping Center parking lot if such parking may, in,M&E's sole judgment,adversely affect the operation,use,or maintenance of the Shopping Center,and M &E also reserves the right to revoke your right to use the Shop-ping Center parking lot at any time by giving you advance written notice of such revocation. Permission to park in the Shopping Center parking lot must be made in writing at least 48 hours before the time such parking will be needed. PIease contact Kraus-Anderson • Realty Company at 4210 West OId Shakopee Road,Bloomington,Minnesota 55437- 2995,Fax No. 612-881-8114, Attention: Silver View Plaza Property Manager,to arrange for parking. In exchange for the use of the Shopping Center parking lot,you must agree to indemnify and hold M&E harmless from all claims,damages,costs, and expenses asserted against or incurred by M&E as a result of your use of the lot. 523 South Eighth Street • Minneapolis, MN 55404 • 612/332-7281 • Fax 612/332-S940 A Affi1IBER OF 111161131AIISANDERSON COMPANIES 2 06/16/99 16:45 K-A DEV. & FIN. CO. MPLS 003 rt Mr. Michael Lewis 2 August 17, 1999 • If use of the Shopping Center parking lot under these terms and conditions is acceptable to you,please acknowledge by signing and returning the copy of this letter which is enclosed herein. Sincerely, M REALTY 0. Bruce W. Engelsma 7 President cr Enclosure Accepted by: MSP REAL ESTATE By: Its: • •3 August 13 , 1999 James Ericson, Planning Associate 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 To whom it may conern: This letter is about the construction of the 48 unit assisted living residential facility to be built at 2670 County Road I . We live at 2755 Lake Court Drive immediately across Mounds View Drive from the above listed property. Our main conern about this project is the amount of parking space that is going to be available . It doesn ' t appear that there will be a lot of room for very much and therefore it will overflow onto our street . We have such a small amount in front of our town homes anyway and surely aon' t , need any additional cars from other places parking in front of our homes . Also seeing around the curve on Moundsview just off of County Road I sometimes can be a hindrence also . The parking is certainly most important to us as I am sure that it is to others living in our area . Thank you, 9<' Dale and Bev Webster 2755 Lake Court Drive Mounds View, MN 55112_. JUL. 28. 1999 2:23PM F&L 319 7193 NO. 1699 P. 4/6 \\ kHSRAssociates _Eli I232 Fourier Drive Madison,Wisconsin 53717 608.662.I34I fax 608;662.13420 A)crnrIEcru,,t , EN e IN EENt NC; TNTEXION OILSKIN July 27, 1999 MSP REAL ESTATE SERVICES 401 N. THIRD STREET, SUITE 440 _ MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 ATTENTION: Milo Pinkerton REFERENCE: Mounds View Assisted Cara: .• :r Dear Mr. Pinkerton: ' •• �- - i:, I have attached a list of assisted care facilities we have designed over the past 5 years. The parking ratio of your Mounds View project of 1 stall per every 2+ units is consistent with what our assisted care operations and communities are experiencing as meeting the needs of parking at an assisted care project. Unfortunately for the residents they do not receive many visitors and don't drive • themselves. The parking is for the staff and for visitors, One stall per every 3 units has worked successfully on past projects. 1 stall per every 2 units will provide overflow parking. Attached is a list of operators of facilities. Please feel free to have the City call them or • the communities they have built in to review parking needs. Sincerely, 4(..- - _....... J-III urquin, • A igi►• Vice 'resid- nt • Attachment: List of facilities • Celebrating 25 years of service in Madison • 1974-1999 JUL. 28. 1999 2:24PM FE 319 7193 NO. 1699 P. 5/6 • • Senior Care Matt Collins 5325 Wall Street, Suite.1500 Madison, WI 53718 Phone: 243-8000 " r_. • Encore Sr. Living Joel Moyer 7617 Mineral Point Road Madison, WI 53717 Phone: 829-0909 ext. 227 . : • Unicare Health Facilities, inc. •; - • •• • '.` ••` - Steve-Sirkis 3816 W. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee. WI 53208 Phone: 414-271-9696 Our House Julie Heil 328 S. Walker Way • Sun Prairie, WI 53590 Phone: 837-5795 Bonnie Amdt 504 S. University Ave. Beaver Dam, WI 53916 Phone: 920-887-2717 ABC Construction Doug Frakes 6502 Grand Teton Plaza Madison, WI 53719 Phone: 833-0900 JUL. 28. 1999 2:24PM F&L 319 7193 NO. 1699 P. 6/6 '. • Il \ , \ ` 2. Past project experience over the past five(S)years. • HSR Associates, Inc. experience includes the following: • • Ty= Space: Cost: Date: Alzheimer's Design: •Encore/Elderhaus Prototypes plus.. -Madison Three 16-units $525,000 1997 -Monroe 8 units $271,300 1997 -Rib Mountain (Wausau) 16 units $525,000 1997 -Eau Claire 16 units $519,000 1997 -Fond du Lac , 16 units $521,400 1997 -Manitowoc 8 units $269,700 1997 • -Sheboygan 8 units $271,400 1997 -Kenosha • 19 units $572,900 1997 -Prairie du Sac 8 units $275,600 1997 Community-Based Residential Facilities(CBRF): •SeniorCare of Wisconsin -New prototype(24 units) -Madison 24 units $764,400 1997 • -Manitowoc 24 units $764,400 1997 -Two Rivers 24 units $764,400 1997 -Kenosha 32 units $1,321,900 1997 -Madison 24 units $764,000 1997 ▪Sheboygan 24 units $764,000 1997 -Stoughton 24 units $764,000 1999 -Racine 24 units $764,Ob0 1998 • Derby Enterprises/Precision -Fond du Lac 30 units $2,076,743 1997 -Madison 8 units $291,000 1997 : • Unicare/Extendicare Health Facility -Altoona 40 units $1,843,381 1998 -Whitefish Bay 48 units $2,600,000 1999 Skilled Nursing Facilities(SNF): •Morrow Memorial Nursing Home, remodeling/rehabilitation 25-30 beds $1.5 Million 1994 •Morrow Memorial Nursing Home Independent Living Facility addition 25 apartments $900,000 1994 -Veterans Administration Skilled Nursing Facility, 2 Phases remodeling of two stories $4.5 Million 1994-1995 (Phased) •Rolling Hills Nursing Home, Sparta $20,000 1995 Misc. Remodeling in Dementia Care MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 584-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, REZONING REQUEST AND CODE AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVING SENIOR RESIDENTIAL FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99. WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for an assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I; and, WHEREAS, such a facility would necessitate a rezoning of the property from Limited Business Commercial (B-2) to High Density Residential (R-4), a request for which has been made by the applicant; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: Tract 'A", Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Staff Report f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99 g. Letter from M & E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99 h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map WIIEREAS,the rezoning request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, which identifies this land as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has considered the specific criteria for assisted living facilities as they appear in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 and find that they are met; and, Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99 August 18, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has considered the provisions from Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use and makes the following findings: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use PUD, which would be consistent with the proposed R-4 zoning of this site. Such a facility would help meet the housing needs of a particular segment of the community. The property is located between commercial sites to the north and a high density residential development and park to the south. The proposed use would act as a buffer between the existing land uses. The proposed style and architectural design of the proposed facility would blend into and add character to this area. WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the general criteria for CUP approval in Subdivision 1125.01 (2) have been met: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. It is not expected that this use will have any impact on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. This development, while not abutting any residential property, would be sufficiently compatible with the existing land uses and would not cause any foreseeable depreciation in neighboring property values. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The architectural renderings presented to the Planning Commission and public show a well designed and aesthetically pleasing building. (4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The demand for assisted living facilities such as the one proposed is growing to accommodate an aging population. Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99 August 18, 1999 Page 3 (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use would be consistent with the R-4 zoning district, which allows for assisted living facilities with a conditional use permit. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, which indicates an anticipation for a variety of uses. An assisted living facility would be consistent with this designation and would also address a goal to offer a wide range of housing alternatives to a variety of population segments. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. It is not expected that this use would create or generate substantial levels of traffic. As such, it would not be expected that this use would cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. All of the infrastructure serving this site are installed and provided--no additional infrastructure will be needed to accommodate this use. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for an assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I, with stipulations. 2. Adopt Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning the property located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential, with a clause indicating that in the event this project does not go forward, the previous zoning will be reinstated by means of a subsequent rezoning action. 3. Adopt Ordinance 639, an ordinance amending and clarifying Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to conditional uses within the R-4, High Density Residential zoning district. Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99 August 18, 1999 Page 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby stipulate that the applicant shall submit a revised site plan prior to Council action which shows an access on County Road I and parking for 31 vehicles. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of August, 1999. Jean Miller, Acting Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEV CASES\559-99\584-99PC.RES ORDINANCE NO. 631 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF 2670 COUNTY ROAD I FROM B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL, TO R-4, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Recitals Section 1.01: MSP Real Estate has applied for a rezoning of the property located at 2670 County Road I, currently zoned B-2, to be rezoned as R-4, High Density Residential, said property legally described as follows: Tract "A", Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota Section 1.02: The use proposed by MSP Real Estate is an assisted living senior residential facility; and, Section 1.03: The Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Staff Report f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99 g. Letter from M&E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99 h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map I. Planning Commission Resolution 584-99 Section 1.04: The Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99; and, Section 1.05: The Mounds View City Council does hereby find that this proposal meets the general requirements and standards for Rezonings as follows: Ownership: The application for approval of this rezoning has been filed by MSP Real Estate, who holds a purchase agreement for the property, and has been executed by the owner of the property, M&E Realty Company. Comprehensive Plan Consistency: The comprehensive plan designation for this property is Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. The proposal is consistent with this designation. Geographic Area Involved: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Mounds View Drive and County Road I. Nearby uses include a SuperAmerica and the Silver View Plaza to the west, a high density residential development and Silver View Park to the south, and a Burger King, Bicycle shop and a senior high rise to the north. Impact to Adjoining Properties: It is believed that the impact of this proposed development would be minimal. The use would act as a transition between the present commercial and residential uses. SECTION 2: The Mounds View City Council hereby amends Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled "Specific Rezonings" and amends the Official Zoning Map for the City of Mounds View to change the zoning designation on the property described above from B-2 to R-4. SECTION 3. The Mounds View City Council does hereby stipulate that in the event the development being proposed by MSP Real Estate does not come to fruition within one year of this ordinance's adoption (or sooner, upon written notification of the applicant), the Council may act to reinstate the property's original B-2 zoning classification. SECTION 4: This Ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. First Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this_ day of , 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCAS ES\559-99\MSP63LORD ORDINANCE NO. 639 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1109.04 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO CONDITIONAL USES WITHIN THE R-4, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE 559-99 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions and-italicized, respectively, to read as follows: Subd. 2. Nursing homes and other senior congregate housing but not including hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions; provided, that: a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this District and are screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. b. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-29-96) c. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. (Ord. 590, 11-29-96) d. The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic which will be generated. e. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.' f. All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and all required operating permits are secured. g. One off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title is provided. h. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) i. The required parking ratio shall be one stall per employee on the busiest shift plus one stall for every three beds or fraction thereof Ordinance 639 Page 2 SECTION 2. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty(30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 23th day of August, 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 13th day of September, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\5 59-99\639.ORD Item No. / Staff Report No. Meeting Date: August 23, 1999 Type of Business: PH& CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Wetland Alteration Permit and Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation over Parts of Lots 17 & 18, Block 1, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle) Date of Report: August 19, 1999 Background: Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development, has requested that the City vacate a portion of a drainage easement that covers Lots 17 & 18 of Edgewood Square which had been dedicated to the City as a result of the platting of Edgewood Square in 1982. Even though wetlands are present over parts of Lots 17 & 18 and all of Lot 19, drainage easements were dedicated for the entirety of these three lots. This was done to satisfy Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation District concerns and City concerns about the potential for flooding and runoff in this area. In addition to the easement vacation, to build on the two lots, a wetland alteration permit would need to be obtained because work would be done within the wetland as shown on the City's official Wetland Zoning Map. Approval would also be needed from the Rice Creek Watershed District. The applicant made a similar request with regard to these two lots on September 9, 1997, however the request was denied by the Council on 12/8/97 because it was felt that the easements were granted in good faith and that the lots were never intended to be built upon. Discussion: According to Section 12.06 of the City Charter relating to Vacation of Streets, the Council may by ordinance vacate any street or alley or other public grounds or part thereof within the City. Minnesota Statutes and the City Charter require that vacations require a public hearing. Such vacations may be made only after published notice in the official City newspaper and for providing the affected property owners and public to be heard. This action shall be recorded with Ramsey County to take effect. The City Attorney has advised staff that the vacation of an easement may be appropriate in the event the easement area no longer serves a public benefit, however the City is not necessarily under any obligation to do so. When originally platted, these two lots and a third were placed in a drainage easement as they were deemed to be unbuildable due to the presence of wetlands. The City since that point has adopted Oakwood Vacation Request Lots 17& 18,Edgewood Square August 23, 1999 Page 2 its Local Water Management Plan which comprehensively deals with all aspects of drainage, stormwater runoff and wetlands within the City. Along with the Wetland Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted by the City in 1992 and revised in 1997, certain types of development under certain conditions are allowed within and alongside wetlands. Vacating a portion of the original easement over and across Lots 17 and 18 would not necessarily be inconsistent with either the Local Water Management Plan or the Wetland Zoning Ordinance. The applicant had the wetland on these lots delineated in 1997 and the delineation was forwarded to the Rice Creek Watershed District, who verified the delineation to be valid. The new delineation, which is shown on the site plan as a heavy dashed line, indicates that almost all of Lot 17 is outside of the wetland, save for a small encroachment toward the back of the lot. SEH, the City's engineer, reported that the grading and drainage proposal provided by the applicant was acceptable from an engineering standpoint, and recommended that if it was the City's intent to grant such a vacation to allow development on the two lots, that an additional ten-foot easement area around the wetland be dedicated to ensure a natural vegetation strip beyond the delineated boundary of the wetland. The central focus of this request then can be narrowed down to two issues. First, do these lots continue to serve any hydrological purpose within the City's local water management plan, and if not, would a partial easement vacation be in the best interest of the public? Secondly, should the City continue to protect the existing open space? Even if the lots do not currently serve a hydrological function other than to act as a natural buffer protecting the wetland, there is the possibility that in the future, additional stormwater ponding or flood storage capacity would be needed at this location in conjunction with the easement areas. If the City was to determine that the lots should be developed, and that the drainage easements intended to be vacated did not serve a hydrological purpose and that an easement vacation would be in the best interest of the City, a wetland alteration permit would be required for any development to occur on the sites. According to Chapter 1010 of the Municipal Code relating to the Wetland Zoning District, any work occurring within a wetland or the 100-foot buffer surrounding a wetland, a wetland alteration or wetland buffer permit is required. The scope of the proposed work as presented involves the filling and excavation of a previously identified wetland area. In order for the City Council to approve a wetland alteration permit request, the proposed development shall comply with the requirements as specified in Section 1010.08, Subd. 4. It appears that these requirements can be met in the event the City does approve of the easement vacation. Planning Commission Action: This request was brought before the Planning Commission on August 4, 1999 to receive their input, given the potential change to the use of the land. A public hearing was held, during which many residents spoke out against the proposal due to the proximity to the wetland and the loss of the natural buffer protecting the wetland. After taking public testimony and hearing a presentation by the developer, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to recommend denial of this vacation and wetland alteration request. The minutes of this meeting are attached for Council review. Oakwood Vacation Request Lots 17& 18,Edgewood Square August 23, 1999 Page 3 Options: A. If the Council determines that there is no public benefit in retaining these easements and that it would be appropriate to allow for Lots 17 and 18 to be developed as proposed, the Council would need to direct staff to draft a resolution in support of a wetland alteration permit and have the first reading of Ordinance 638, which has been prepared for your action in this event. B. If the council finds that the easement areas do continue to serve a public benefit such that the vacation of which would not be in the public interest, the Council would need to direct staff to prepare a resolution that would (1) deny the wetland alteration permit request and (2) deny the vacation request. (31-01/414 EIR-LAGU, James Ericson, Planning Associate Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Grading Plan Purchase Agreement Letter,dated 2/11/99 RCWD Permit,expires 10/16/99 City Council Minutes, 12/8/97 Letter from SEH,dated 8/12/81 Letter from the MN SWCD,dated 6/28/81 Letter from the MN SWCD,dated 7/27/81 Planning Commission Minutes, 8/4/99 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\565-99\VALUE-CC.RPT WHIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION �` ' 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 •,e l::.ir i -4°4•Parmesi,Q' 612-717-4020 • 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form • Applicant Information Name of Applicant @R& {^,, e. e suN -0A tc.u.,o c) Etc,v lephone Z ko-L{q K b Address I' it 1-1:51...,-) to Fax '! ga - r i•.) L044 9..,1c, M,d 5S432 Interest in Property(check appropriate box) O Owner of Property a Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager 11 Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Ldi S /7 f 1 g [~6174 wvot( ‘5 ut( Property Identification#(PIN#) ()5 -3o-�� © ao-7 ---). #of Acres Current Zoning 12- Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) • Refer to rezoning fees o PUD Amendment $350 O Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 O Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 O Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acr-• s• $125 max$750 Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R $150- all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R- 25;all others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 7 Other *Deposits shall be paid to coverall costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant tune spent in the review, _ a - research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. = ..b �- t City of Mounds View,MNPage 2 Development Application Present Use of Property q Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment O Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) • Property Classification 41 Abstract 0 Torrens Description of Proposal 'QEaves-i-i a c ? h rtr THE E tcsvl-E A,r Dv e. I'1 a- 18 o FDGewvdi> Seiv e re vitc o BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant ;� eTT2e& f'E' st•^' -- 0Aick. 'Jo LhN0 �1'—0""er-4 (2 Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner ,///L.--- -1 Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) 7/- A.vo I A,1r' Do..,F RA-6,, Address of Owner /h f l /4,-71,-- 1v in� 1_,,1,tP ic.. 5Sr-!3z Phone Number of Owner kU—g i a(1. QFOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal '2'&- 9 I -T 4- i l.` Assigned to: Yn Date of Acceptance 60-day Limit 120-day limit Planning Case No. .StOS-q ill Account# Check# R- pL e Fees Paid: � e24/1‘4. oclQt Application: I'"O-d Park Dedication: a���L— a f p P Deposits: Soo•o U l O d a-3 a.6al 4`+' 1 Other t4 56•°° Total: +• ,may 1/98 1',2N:\DRTA\GROUPS1COMDEV\FOR.ti{S\DEVAPP.FOR i ,.,1 ,.: fF.tt.' - v_, ._F' -x,: _ �'--i_...w..�-Y aaFA;2,; ktir:t r`1R .i 'c*:42,44t rn �`. ''.'.,_....}. _,-c.ices, 12:01.., `el . 7989 7988 7929 7928 ..12,1„,,,,c74 N ' O� Pc& A: c+N N` N < 7984 1 7927 ,l+ ,n,tN 0 a'- eC; 79251 7924 O 7923 �`A V��O��c� ��c' ��c�`t2�' c u 7980 7971 7968 7921. 7920 w 7919 M N�► ,v� r mac'•�5 Co\N N N C ............_±___ 7917 7914�`'�-- N=N 'd►!6'c'c X1/41 `%cpN..N �`j.- 7944 7953 7948 w 7913: r , �+ _. __.._. 7913 w 90 •r M �i'"�Of �. 46 N ,/, 7910 7909 M M M!N \c'' �,e 793 7931 4 7930 7909 7906 U 79• T N N 04NRO N �`4, _ u os �' io • 79001443;1 On G 1 . In i 7905 790 ,�,�Vl o in t ,,n N M N N N N ' N t N N 7901 r CO N N N to) N N N- ,c,,:441 N N O 4 _ MM. N r i O O tp: O ; d t0 9 Or dM PF O to r M1A M . PIM ! M M SI � ; N co; Ill N 88• 7889 7868 N N Nr N; N N N N ( N N N< N = N N I N _. _ i OAKWOOD DRto =tel }" 7878 7875?7868 7869`7860 o>? CO n n Co,o, .............—t...........- .--.-- 7855 5619 561 5619 5618 N N N N N:N)t 7870 786117854 07857 785• -.-w N N N N N;1 Z__.6 _: _. 5613 to 5612 5613 r 5612 OA 7836 3 7847 7840 7845 78 • 784 c d g _,_ 75 8 5607 5606'5607 N 5606 N t N f r- 71,o i 7837 783• w 782 t--..,,_,.. -.,... - NINNit !N 7820 0 7833!7832 > 5601 5600 5601 5600 N O 7827 782• . �_ 0,!co ^ n to 2 781 3 7815:7814 4 5562 N i N N(N N N W 7806 �----- 7817 p j°'—_-__ __.• 5563 W 5562 55 N N N t N N N -7800 7801 ;7800 ----- ! 5557 5556 5557 w 5556 ,-------� 7807 r �n,n U 2 co F m l O ;.t t ,o w7778 774917750 r. " 5551—5550,5551a. 5550 0�'Ai j<0`°,� 1 --'-"-r^--...... i 17 M ,, w • N N 1 N °N I N 1 N 7768 _ 7751 N N :� 5545 5544 5545- 5544 - 'N . N .'. 7739'7740 _,,,,_,.,_ E ---r•-• ___ .4 7741 77 . PINEWOOD CIR �"� ......,...... ,n nro, M N o, , 7729 7730 O0 r....! N ( ` 7748 ...t 0 CO ^ 03 ?�•' 5539 5538 5539 5538 NN j ; N b N. N ; 7728 771917720 d 7731 773• iLi N N N M S& 15533553Z5533 5532 Z PINEWOOD ......_,...............z— - N 7710 7709,7710 7721772. - � _. __.._ ._ - 1 �___ _ m_. _. 7715 n 5527 5520,5527 N 5526 0 rn 5°coo '°•o 1 r c ,°�° li O N I 770. C' 7701 N N I N N N 5521 552(15521 .5520 N ;N I N I N N; N C C � 77017700 CO RD ,0 O l• • O Cp3 ; 01 O O pO w �} O ,OfJ Oa.. U 4 dM' d? :-5 M M M MM1 N ! L.0. N N N N N N N= N N -N N "N"}'�; N 8-1; 766C v 5497 PUD �' .� in __. f. 766: I -3 766. 764 7658 __w ___ • N N N N n49�1 R �1: ___-_ _. 7661 66 , 7641,7656 T GR DEG ST ( • 7639 7644 7651 5_480 j 5479 D �5474y 5473- ; 7655 7635 762 y,. � •;O 7635(7630 `•-"'--"' �„ 7645 '2' O 7625 7628 7641 R-4 5468 5467 �i�1�lI�L 1 R-- 761 7610 R (i 0 5462 5463 , i to ,a 5 ,��, 761 w 759 7594 7631U N v 5445 5454 5455 i r N N N 1 N 763 1 ""' Y 0 5446 5447 , R 1 L — 7581 7580 7531a s 5440-- g co 0 to 7565 7564 o O n 5441 7551 7550 7521 5434 5433 Lo N N N -- 5426 5425 to 0 el- to7535 7534 w 7511 ---- 5420 w _5421 ; N N 7521 7520 5414 5415 750517504 7501 5401 . . " i4:0 . . ... 5406 f 5405 PF BRONSON Zoning Map Planning Case 565-99 Applicant: Oakwood Land Development Location: Lots 17 & 18, d Square Ed ewoo S are g IP 111 City of Mounds View Location Map 01 ____ ___.— MINN mu AO istuaw s• MK MIMI -11111110 11 _LL I I I I I 0. _ I • 1111111111 ` I IMO 111111.1 - = __.�._ 111 I LI . _ L I1111S2', ,sioli21 0 I I I I.1 I Ili 1 ,_ �r111111111 H /t11 — — —.S a 1-0,-,:‘,:., ______ . .,..„ .,,,„„ _ mminue, > ______.— , -11 .....„ = 11111111���r��11 i i i t - , I ' 11111111 mil inn ___ Irmo Nom mu Ir111 �1� ►�1i y, � 111111? r , C 1111.. �111111� 1u1111 .. .... . �� = == — == = r� AWE II _ - _=., ..... I :: :: - ... .... . � � MN MIN MI ■1111I illllllllll �= �� III MI-- ••—iiii_�----11�{",".— ,.1.7.°22- IR Greg Peterson, Oakwood Land Development i'=���%.u�._fir, =- 11111: r—®�i���11111111: Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation '1.'4T','u �JII��IE:i:.dmi '� � � Planning Case No. 565-99 ths--zili _ „1111111 11111111111 • ,. 11,,. .,112....'.'.� .,-En " i uintlaulll.111111111111♦ _�= a 'iiui,,41111111118111111111 i-'.• 0 „111111 111111111181111 F■' �'�le=- : '.sad, i tri i.,1 mu i mi „��_ _ �T ,:°�; 11;:&-.1,.1.1. Edgewood Square, Lots 17 and 18 nl_== , 1. ;::7: I mi q 111"aAL. ,_- :t.., CA4/ ,i - _nittimm,l T' :; 1 Properties Within 350 __Q1=__.: a.. E■■IIIIIIpL' 2 mon Illlli'nlll;-1-F�®r . _'�= IIII ..:aNM Q1—��y(((�.���,,,,.,14, FJyr=I a— rumimil...1 t „1 I1I ” p e.;� � o 111:It 1t limolomria =ice I ■ I 1 %i:- t Iti I I .. ......„ ----------------------- / -_ • � r I �r ----\-- i 1 I ; I 'moi I li I i I 907.8 1 I i, , { r I i , 1., ,„ ,; . it i, :. .I , , . �� `\ c, ,„„ .........fyp�.. _, ,......., R a ni, ,., . _ , ,. , , ?meq ,. 0' is �I iri! .� �q�ry�gpY -- z \�'�. rrir I , ��\ / o O _, CI I .iIt i V7 I cD I 1 a r Nan •:1I II m CI , I ed rn I I Q! r�.f I 1kAltia, 1'1'% le1 td II il A , \ . ,timick . 1 ;:rA.\,,,,,,,,ue. .Aliak. •yl . a -,..:..-Aimmi-j:: :' ..-Ill\ on .T::\ Illall i. .. : ••. .. ••:it:•:.•: :I• • Z <o co E .C. ` i:: :t�t r : .r: N . / ri / :n , / Ni PI CO , J , co1 MD \ \\ I m �Qz 1 ,oCO OD 1 CO 1 • \\I\ 11 ;00 O � \\ I \ \` 11 al I, \ 1 Q19 IV N ',. --'....)—7N:: CO/ s .0 N. N • U7 Q 7.r., ?11 1 # 0 1 Sent By: Oakwood Land Development, Inc; 612 780 8591 ; Jul-26-99 9:04AM; Page 2/2 OAKWOOD LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1611 Highway 10 • Spring Lake Park,MN 55432 `-' Phone:612-780-4996 • Fax:612-780-8591 February 11, 1999 Peggy }Jaselius 2381 County Road I ' '""' Moundsview, MN 55112 Re: Your lots on Pinewood Circle Dear Peggy, This letter is to summarize the discussions we had today regarding your lots Pinewood circle. We will pay you $17,500 per lot for Lots 17 and 18 Edgewood Square if we are able to get the City of Moundsview to vacate the drainage and utility easements which currently encumbers these two lots. I have decided that it will be necessaryto hire an attorney to help us work toward approval of our vacation request. All costs associated with development, including attorneys fees, will be paid by us. If this arrangement is agreeable to you, please sign a copy of this letterand then 1 will begin to work towards our objective. S',,\•ely, Jot t Peterson Presi, tjvcizztaQf v / ' Sent By: Oakwood Land Development, Inc; 812 780 8591 ; Jul-23-99 7:19AM; Page 2/2 -, - • .•-•-, . - - .• .• '•'--..=;',..4-,....1.'',"''•. '''',. '''''''-',c;' 'Ait.-77-''''',"'‘i•• tw't''''- '3...1.011;7,'.fki.„, '..• '... , ••• t'o., i•e• 4,z,*,,!,..„. ,„,"54.1,-.4..,g,,,t IP .„.1, :,' •,..'.•• , . ,• •.•:-.',.:',;-.•;-•.`-..,::,,,,•,•••2;47,2,2'gs.,. , ,..4.,..,...-• • .. •'1,,,' .4,4,,,,,,,-..,...,...^,:,-c;•;,27,-. ....1. .,„ , '- -- 4:;,,,:•,••;;,,, ., iig.e.6..t.Irr 021,..4.,,. '";i:em ":1;,;..f.',..7,...,', .;,,,!.,:'....,,: .::'::',..'-'..-;:::1%-*in::''''',' -;..,r''. '';,.g...,..'4",4,i4N=OF;r4.' ... :.2.-41;*;41,':;',.!':'11'..^i:-:?•3SN.1.4.7...1/4•:•.'..?..44:.*ellki'r7.,244.4i-t.‘',11•45":7 :05'..0.. •••,.',11.1 '.'",;r:')^•''''''' ''''' gu..$4:1:1•::' 447.0.:mkt,,,,....,:j".'.;::'.16.'tv.4.5.'W.7.!.:(44.''• •",'..•:.•:•••••'1..I:?..-...,•••.4',U;r1•;'...),..e.1,15%.•.,:,'..:-.i..r::,•:,•2•,.:*;.:•,...;z:•:•::::::.7.';',VT.........'.....:::',.,:•........ 1.!)::,,,...`:"'''':',.:';'-'• ':;-'6':*:'r:..:/''.l''',..4-::;;,-a... ,,.1-.1.:A '4... ,' 1 .:,..ANAst .04krittaz....,;..:'cr.....1.,.4:-/s..•;.:.:74...,• •;•.. ,:.,.......•. •...:7......,!..N..l....;.4.-,..046:::.,...f:2.1,sr.,:,....:..,..,:.:::•:•......4.•'..1::.:7:,•.i,...ka,..,,..,.:',•,.,. '''.4'-''‘'P':':;',•L‘',`'''."' 'Y'...,.,k.;.'" '"'S''',4.'''•: :.'.,..p'•''.•:f.., iti.:1?.:14.- 1,1T*?. .;.•:j.'!•t3n''':..:...'.,.1:414.h.'' ':•-'...`:‘. ...'•..'''''!:'...":.4;.'?,!:44."11..41::•....:::•!.:t.':"..;:..';'•f:.'''....:::-........,t.::..):f......':..:',...:..i .:',,. ,...:•*.?.?``.1.,.).. ;.., •, .t -.;....,404,W Atf...'?7•••,:....'..0'.',':.$4.,i21......:`,r::•:: ::•:;.:,..:•., :...............:'''''':'... '' • 17 : ,,x5.:,.; ,... .,..,-..4.4;1J1J'P/%0,.r.At'•,':.•:•::,;:,::,:-.::.2.:',:::‘i:A".:1.../.:'•,:':.'..'P..:•••1•1'..,•••.•,, ' • '• "• ••••:••.....''•':'-'•:‘:'.••••• ' •.: •••' - '- ' •••'••••' ••,•:'•••••••:It • •• • . . . • , . • • '44 R.: '14f, ••,...o, •,:,t,,/:',S,04,1S,"/01:::!.:..e•••••••••••••••••%:•;••••••:;'•':::;.,•:•: •:;•'•:::'•T',....••••••••••'. •"' ' '1."4 restai' 4•1`.7'',7,4:'•••..":1•••elge..j:'''''''...7-"::.•........ ' .:',... ....'..'''',...4'.."' :*••••• •"..•• • •' • ... . ,f0...1111V.1 . .'.*:%....V. 7.1 ''':'..' •./.." 1.:::".:FSZIS " . ' .......,.. •,....7.• ....,.. :•'.. •••• ' , .• ... ... • • . .. . • • .. . mill t••;.,•`.11,17,,,,:•:.;.A...,,,'.'4.::t;:4.',4:ti, •••t .110:".:'.. .,.: ;•.i**•;c/a,,,•,,...!:::: :... ..,„....m. ..:,.. . • •, .,11,,,,z.,i11......,,... ..,,, ••. Coll : n - :re ..„.::::.m:.......:.„.:,..,.t . 77. ::, •. . 4 . •:.:....:41...:.:,,z.:„...:7•..,:::.:...1•:••=6. ...4•.",•— ••• ", IBW • • Mil ':',...., •'''''".''''::.:':''Vi • ...•2, . 51 ', •• • :..-,:.CD....g••':,:•:,:.::.`;:•';7:•rn...,, ......M . ...:::.mi........::,...,...• ......,. ..................:co.. 1:00 " rrt • CO) . ,.. . • . . ,mci .Pm; somi .. g....... , .. =,: rrt =1 ow :ICI ' ' (/),.... fm•..,.,..z...•. = cv Cri 2 •= Cf:2 47. ci ri • = a • ...... CI a C, • - . .•r 4. ,..•• 2 0 " . .... al Cial ' 2° ' . • CM . • cl:" ., p • . • Cr3 . ff co if D moo • .ig. ,. -aci : • I . 0 ,,;.!ti.,.„-.....„.:,,t-,),::..;71,!'• , P' ' (1) 111111 • • 4 rola CD .C:1 VII Ir m CIL • OINI f fin t • Ill a i • a • EMMI . all CIC) Coi, )° I.I 1/ • • .•::. 1 II rEgi i lk it CO Nat ma mil % Iiir 0 . • 2 co k Z. • ma 1 iii la _. a I vo 3 11) I I I 1 . : a S M :•• •• smIll CO t 1:1- immillmj • . 0.1 •I . • • 1;1) -Cil . :... • 0 •:.- ' • . •• • i ,.....CII...:•,..:;=. . . - •• . • 4, • • . • : . •NI .. ...• • ••• • . . •k : l .... CID • • „. . . . . ,. • ,,•••••:-..,.....--:.:•••,::',.‘......•. :•:::.•••::......••••.... • • . I .. . • t Page 3 APPROVED December 8, 1997 Mounds View City Council Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no questions or comments from the public on this issue and Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve the renewal of the 3.2 off-sale malt liquor license for Tom Thumb Food Markets,2408 County Road I. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried c. To consider the transfer of the 3.2%off-sale malt liquor license for Super America to Retail • Joint Venture,2640 County Road I. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m. There were no questions or comments from the public on this issue and Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Koopmeiners to approve the transfer of the 3.2%off-sale malt liquor license for Super America to Retail Joint Venture,2640 County Road L VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 2. Consideration of Resolution No.5194,Approving the Mounds View Matters Newsletter Bid Award to Nystrom Publishing for the year 1998. • : MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve Resolution No.5194,Approving the Mounds View : Matters Newsletter Bid Award to Nystrom Publishing for the year 1998. : VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried • : Mayor McCarty asked that Item 4 under Council Business be considered prior to Item 3,as the Council's action on Item 4 would affect their decisions on Item 3. • 4. First Reading of Ordinance No.608,an Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage Easement over and across Lots 17 and 18,Block 1,Edgewood Square,requested by Good Value Homes,Inc. a. Public Hearing: Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m. There were no comments or questions from the public and Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/McCarty to deny the request for Ordinance No.608,an Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage Easement over and across Lots 17 and 18,Block 1,Edgewood Square,requested by Good Value Homes,Inc. Mr.Bob Long,City Attorney,stated he had reviewed all correspondence in the records including a letter dated June 28, 1981 from the Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation District In this letter,they recommended that Lots 17, 18 and 19 remain undeveloped for drainage and wetland purposes. This is one of the reasons the drainage easement was granted across those lines. He also reviewed a letter dated August 12, 1981 from the Short-Elliott-Hendrickson Engineering firm which concurred that leaving those lots undeveloped would be of • benefit to the city for wetlands and drainage. APPROVED Page 1r December 8, 1997 Mounds View City Council Mr.John Peterson, representing Good Value Homes,Inc.,explained that the two reasons the city acquired a drainage easement in the 1980's were for storm water detention and because it was believed to be wetland. Neither of those conditions exist today and the plan they propose would actually improve the storm water detention in the area by increasing the capability of the ponding area in terms of storage. They have also gone to great lengths to determine that this land is nota part of the wetlands,as originally determined. He proceeded to clarify the details regarding ownership of the property,noting that they have a purchase agreement with the current owner for the purchase of the land. Mayor McCarty asked if this purchase agreement contained any contingencies. Mr.Peterson noted that the agreement was contingent upon the approval of Ordinance 608 by the City of Mounds View. Mayor McCarty noted that the Consulting Engineers had already determined that the lots were within the 904 Contour elevation which at that time was determined to be wetland through the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. He does not know what would have changed physically to make that determination any different. He believes the drainage easement was given in good faith that these lots would not be buildable. ROLL CALL VOTE: (To deny Ordinance 608) Mayor McCarty aye : Council member Quick nay • : Council member Stigney aye Council member Gunn • aye Council member Koopmeiners nay Motion carried(3-2) 3. Consideration of Resolution No.5173,a Resolution Approving a Wetland Alteration Permit for Lots 17&18,Block 1,Edgewood Square,requested by Good Value Homes,Inc MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Stigney to table indefinitely Resolution No.5173,a Resolution Approving a Wetland Alteration Permit for Lots 17 and 18,Block 1,Edgewood Square,requested by Good Value Homes, Inc. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried • 5. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution NO.5183,a Resolution Approving the Silverview Estates Preliminary Plat and. • 6. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No.5184,a Resolution Approving the Development Stage Review for the Silverview Estates PUD. • Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearings at 7:30 p.m. Mr.Patrick Peters,Planning Consultant,explained that the applicant,Silverview Estates,is requesting approval for a Preliminary Plat and Development Plan for a convenience market,two office buildings and a senior residential facility at the corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road. He went over the events that have occurred since May when the City Council approved the ordinance for the rezoning of the property and the resolution approving the general concept plan for the PUD. The Planning Commission reviewed the plat � SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC.. ® CONSULTING ENGINEERS ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • CHIPPEWA FALLS,WISCONSIN August 12, 1981 RE: MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE (ROBERT EIGENHEER PROPERTY) OUR FILE NO. 77039 City of Mounds View 2401 Highway #10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Attn: Mr. Steven A. Rose • Gentlemen: We have reviewed the revised grading plan for this project dated August 4, 1981. We find that the storm water storage pond proposed to be constructed adjacent to the wetland meets the requirements of City Resolution No. 983. We would recommend that the outlet pipe from the pond be a 12" reinforced concrete pipe as : is dictated by the drainage calculations applied by the developers engineer. We understand that it has been determined that the existing wetlan.s ex end up to the 90' contour elevation. The •ro•osed •ond site lies partially within this area, t if t e three lots west of the proposed pond site are reserve. •ur•oses, the additiona . -nefit ofg o and above the 904 contour elevation immediately lwest hofwthe epon. ea site will be realized. • • Summarizing our previous comments on the preliminary plat, we feel that the 6" sanitary sewer shown on the preliminary plat shall be changed to an 8" sanitary sewer, and the class 5 gravel base should be increased from 4" to 6" in thickness. The developer proposes to construct a 32 ft. wide street in the Edgewood Drive right-of-way with extruded bituminous curbs. This street could be extended to proper MSA street width in the future if it is determined that Edgewood Drive is to be constructed to Hillview Road. We recommend approval of the preliminary plat from an engineering standpoint subject to the foregoing. Sincerely, o+fv 1 anzelan Bo. R. Boxrud / cc: Keith Nelson DRB/cih 200 GOPHER BUILDING • 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 • PHONE (612) 484-f1271 RAMSEY SOIL AND ' \TER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Mid.America Bank Building 1827 North Saint Poul Rood Maplewood,Minnesota 5.5109 Telephone (612 777-3127 MINNESOTA • SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS July 27, 1981 TO: Mr. Don Faaly, .City Acini ni strator Subject: Development of Inventoried Wetland 1-19. Field observations of Wetland 1-19 show that vegetative habitats between the 902 and 904 contours form a continuum of Types 1, 2 and 6 wetlands. It is difficult or impossible to delineate exactly each of the a for- nmtioned habitats. It is apparent that this Landscape is saturated or seasonally flooded for some duration to support any wetland habitats at all. If the City is in a position to negotiate drainage easement rights for Lots 17-19, I feel little if any impact would result from the develop- ment of Pinewood Circle. Conversely, any development on Lots 17-19 would definitely jeopardize the integrity of wetland 1-19. During the development of Pinewood Circle disturbance to wetland habitats north of the indicated roadway should be minimized and erosion control measures implemented to minimize impacts to the wetland. Sincerely, p , Tan Feterse*i • Conservation Specialist • AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -O i RAMSEY SOIL AND .TER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Mid-America Bent, Building 1827 North Saint Paul Road Maplewood,Minnesota 5°1C9 Telephone ;S I2; 777.0 127 144111111 MINNESOTA kinkhk SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS a�%31.11239 June 28, 1981CP ?� JUL 1&i1 co iZ j vlsD Mr. Robert Eigenbeer C��'�oF MW 12015 Central Avenue N.E. r'.� ' ° 3 VIE Blaine, Minnesota 55434 Dear Mr. Eigenbeer: • . Mr. Thomas Petersen presented his review of the preliminary plat of Mounds •View Square Development to the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors for their consideration. We accept his report. The bulk of the soils in this plat are suitable for development with minor limitations, i.e., Zimmerman and the Lino Urban complex. Major problems are sidewall caving of trenches for foundations, low fertility when reestablishing vegetation, and wind erosion during development. All these limitations can be easily overcome. However, the policy of the Ramcley Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors is not to recommend development of wetlands better suited for storm water retention. We recommend that lots 17, 18 and 19 remain undeveloped. If these lots are developed all organic soils should be removed, replaced with suitable fill, and allowed to settle for an appropriate time (about one year) before development begins. . Sincerely, • k. 11115:ti4:1-.4,44,97. • Russell S. Adams, Jr. Plat 'Review Committee • c.c.: Mr. Thomas Petersen Mounds View City Council Rice Creek Watershed District AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 Commissioner Hegland stated there should be language in the resolution to indicate an agreed upon parking ratio for this type of use. Ericson stated,frsm'`the information presented, they had determined there really was no way create a parking ratio which would apply specifically to assisted living, as there are different intensities of assistance`that can be provided, He stated that the Code presently required a 1 to 3 ratio. Commissioner Hegland stated this was a specialized situation, and inquired if anything could be included in the resolution • cover it. Ericson stated that this could be done. He stated, if the Commission desires, a code amen. ..t could be put in place to specifically address assisted living,and possibly apply the parking ratios det:rmined for this facility to be the requirement for assisted facilities in general. Acting Chair Stevenson explained that an . endment to the Code would have to be considered separately,with additional readings and s. orth. He stated they could just be specific to this site, as a requirement of the conditional use .-rmit. He asked the Commission if they would direct staff to provide a resolution the next meeting to recommend approval of the Code amendment to change the B-2 to R-4 zoning, and the conditiona • - •ermit. MOTION/SECOND:Miller/Stevenson to Direct S :ffto Prepare a Resolution and Draft ordinance for approval of the Rezoning of Property and a Co :itional Use Permit, to allow for an Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility to be Located at 26 I County Road I, Planning Case Nos. 559-99, 560-99. Ayes—6 Nays— 1 (Johnson) The motion carried. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was -• in favor of the down zoning of commercial properties. Commissioner Miller inquired if a more specifi, site plan would be provided at the next meeting. Ericson stated that staff could discuss the matte' with the applicant, explaining that it is not required at this point in the process. Acting Chair evenson stated that prior to approval, the Commission would request clarification of the parking, .nd parking ratios, and would appreciate a more definite layout of the parking and overflow. 7. Planning Case No. 565-99 Property Involved: Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle) Discussion concerning a request to vacate a portion of a drainage easement and request to allow for the construction of two single family homes via a wetland alteration permit. Applicant: Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development. The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 Greg Peterson,representing Oakwood Land Development,has requested that the City vacate a portion of a drainage easement that covers Lots 17 & 18 of Edgewood Square, which had been dedicated to the City as a result of the initial platting in 1982. Even though wetlands are present over parts of Lots 17& 18 and all of Lot 19, drainage easements were dedicated for the entirety of the three lots. This was done to satisfy Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation District concerns and City concerns about the potential for flooding and runoff in this area. In addition to the easement vacation, to build on the two lots,a wetland alteration permit is also being requested and would need to be obtained because work would be done within the wetland as shown on the City's official Wetland Zoning Map. Approval is also needed from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Ericson stated the applicant made a similar request with regard to these two lots on September 9, 1997. He stated,however,the request was denied by the Council on December 8, 1997, as it was felt that the easements were granted in good faith and that the lots were never intended to be built upon, due to the possibility of detriment to the wetland. Ericson stated,at this time,the applicant is requesting the same action, and there were no changes in regard to the plans submitted. He provided the Commission with a copy of the delineation of the wetland upon Lots 17 and 18,which was made in 1997,and further verified by Rice Creek Watershed District to be accurate. He stated, however, the delineation does not agree with the City's official Wetland Zoning Map, explaining that at the time of its making, the wetlands were not delineated, but defined to fall within a certain elevation. He stated the area that is proposed to be filled, falls within the 904-foot elevation, which has been deemed flood storage capacity. He stated that the applicant has proposed to create an additional holding pond on the back half of Lot 17, to replace the flood storage capacity. He stated this would alleviate any issues in regard to lessening the flood storage capacity, and may ultimately create additional flood storage. Ericson stated that the real issue is whether or not the easements serve a public purpose, and if not, should they be vacated. He stated, at the same time, consideration should be given to whether or not the preservation of the environment should continue as it is, a buffer between the existing neighborhood,the wetland, roadway, and the lots to the north of the wetland. He stated the issue is in regard to the appropriateness of vacating the drainage easement to allow for two more homes in the area. He stated that the property is zoned appropriately for the proposal, however, there would be some disruption to the neighborhood and to the natural area. He stated that it is not indicated that the wetland would be impacted, although the construction would occur on the perimeter and outside of the delineated area. Ericson stated that all residents within 350 feet of the proposal were notified by staff, and had presented numerous comments, unfavorable to the proposal, and indicating concerns regarding the detriment to the neighborhood and drainage system, with the exception of one resident who was in favor of the proposal. He provided the Commission with a letter from a resident who was not able to attend the meeting, however, indicated that the residents were not in favor of the proposal. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 Ericson stated that staff was seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission in regard to the granting of this easement vacation to allow for the two additional building sites, or if the drainage easements should stand, as was the original intent of the subdivision. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the current owner of Lots 17 and 18, and if they had been compensated for granting the drainage easements. Ericson stated that the owner of the property was Peggy Haselius, and he was not certain if she had been compensated. He stated that he believed Mrs. Haselius owned all of the surrounding property at that time, and the easement was granted as a condition of the approval of the subdivision. He stated that the subdivision would not have been approved,were it not for the granting of these easements, as it was believed at that time, the lots were located within the wetland, and that in providing the easements, the impact to the wetland would be minimal. John Peterson, applicant and owner of Oakwood Land Development, stated his company develops properties throughout the metropolitan area, primarily in Blaine and the northern suburbs. He stated that he was also speaking on behalf of Peggy Haselius, who has resided in the same house in Mounds View for 51 years. He stated the manner in which his company became involved in this issue was rather unique. He explained that another developer had begun the process years ago, ran into financial difficulties,and his company bailed that developer out and completed the process. He stated that his company believed they owned these lots for many years, however, in 1997 they determined the lots were owned by Mrs.Haselius. He stated that it would have been easy for them to walk away from the matter at that point, however, it became somewhat of a personal cause for him. He stated Mrs. Haselius retired 11 years prior, and lives on a fixed income. He stated, in his opinion, she has the good faith right to develop the lots, and to receive 37,000 dollars from his company for them. Mr.Peterson stated the City Attorney had previously determined that the City had the easements, and could keep them if they so desired. He stated that, due to the expense to his company and Mrs. Haselius, he does not desire to resolve the matter through the court system. He added that it would not be worth it for these two lots. He stated, however, many things have changed since the 1980's. He explained that the interpretation of wetland has been clearly defined and agreed upon by the environmental community,the scientific community, the legislators, and the politicians, who now all agree upon what a wetland is. He stated this was not the case in 1981 when this plat went through Mr. Peterson stated they hired an expert to go to the site and tell them where the wetland was. He stated they then contacted Rice Creek Watershed District and requested they confirm these findings, and they did. He stated that their proposal to develop Mrs. Haselius' lots will not touch any wetland. He stated that the proposal fills 11,850 cubic feet of flood storage in that area, however, it creates 39,500 cubic feet of flood storage. He stated that these lots have already been platted, and the street is already in. He stated that the net effect of vacating this easement, and allowing Mrs. Haselius to sell the land to his company so that he can prepare it for houses, is almost a 30,000 cubic foot gain in flood storage capacity in that basin. He stated that the Watershed District will confirm this. Mr.Peterson stated that they have obtained the Rice Creek Watershed District permit. He stated that water is not the issue. He stated the issue is open space, and the development of the property. He Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 stated the issue is the neighbors, who do not want two more houses in the area, because they use the lots almost every day all summer long, and their children play on the lots. He stated that it is Mrs. Haselius who is held liable if those children are injured on that property. Mr.Peterson stated, in good faith,Mrs. Haselius and the developer granted the easements, which are no longer necessary. He stated that the reason for the easements was not open space. He explained the City did not state they wanted the easements for open space. He stated the City requested the easements for water storage, and to prevent interference with the wetland, and that neither of these reasons apply any longer. He stated,if the Commission is to listen to the neighbors and leave the lots as open space,it will not be in keeping with the original intent. He stated that$10,000 in property tax has been paid for the subject lots, through 1997. He stated the property taxes have not been paid following the denial of the City Council, on a three-to-two vote, in 1997, and may well go delinquent. He stated the $10,000 in property tax was paid because they had reason to believe that the wetland delineation and the reason for the easements were changing. He stated that these have changed, the wetlands are not located as previously believed, and the flood storage capacity issues have been resolved. He inquired how they could be required to pay$10,000 in taxes, and not be allowed to develop the lots. He stated this was not fair or right. Mr.Peterson stated the neighbors do not want two more houses, although, basically the same type as those already in the area,possibly more expensive, because they want to use Mrs. Haselius' land. He stated they wanted to look at it, drive by it, and literally use it. He stated this proposal presented no negative impact to the neighbors. He stated that Mrs. Haselius, having lived in Mounds View for 51 years, and being retired on a fixed income, is greatly impacted by not being allowed to develop the two lots. He stated that she is impacted in the amount of$37,000. He inquired how much this proposal would hurt the neighbors. He stated that Mrs. Haselius had acted in good faith. He stated that the Council narrowly denied this proposal in 1997. He requested the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they vacate the easements. Acting Chair Stevenson inquired why the matter was coming before the Planning Commission, with virtually no changes since 1997, and not going directly before the City Council. Ericson stated staff felt that with the land use implications, and in light of the comprehensive plan revision, it might be useful for the City Council to hear a recommendation of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the map presented to the Commissioners upon their membership to the Planning Commission was still accurate. Ericson stated that this zoning map does not accurately represent any wetlands within the City. Acting Chair Stevenson opened the floor for public input at 8:21 p.m. Tony Miskowiec, 2396 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a new resident to the area. He stated he had moved to the area from northeast Minneapolis, where they are about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars reclaiming nature along the river. He stated he started a neighborhood organization, which purchased lots, and took down the houses to develop open spaces. He stated that this kept the property values up. He stated that open areas have been proven to keep the property values high. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 He stated when he selected his house he had been shown properties within a certain range. He stated that he had seen bigger, newer, nicer houses, but chose his home because of the clear view of the swamp. He stated the realtor secured a higher price because of the swamp. He stated that he would not be greatly impacted by the proposal due to the location of his house, however, the rest of his neighbors would suffer a negative impact. Barb Liukkonen, 2367 Pinewood Circle, stated that she understands that the proposed houses will be outside of the 904-foot flood storage level,however,they would be within the 100-foot buffer area, which although not required, is recommended for the preservation of wetlands and open spaces. She stated that Lot 17,and probably 18 as well, would require the removal of all of the existing oak trees for the construction. She stated that this is one of the few remaining stands of oak, noting that much of the other oak in the area has been lost to oak blight over the last ten years. She stated it is a stand approximately 40 years old, and isolated from other oak trees by the wetland and the retention of the flood storage located behind it. She stated that she thought this would be a real loss, not only for the neighborhood, but for the community as well. She stated that the house located adjacent to Lot 17 and 16,has a floodwater storage basin in the back yard, which is a pit ten feet deep. She stated that this was an undesirable situation, and provided no place for children to play. She stated this house sat vacant for 2%years,and has since been sold, however, if they wish to construct another house under the same conditions, it would not be highly saleable either. She stated the vacant properties could become nuisance houses. She stated that this plan may compensate for flood storage, however in her opinion,it is not a productive and viable alternative for flood storage, and will remove valuable green space and natural habitat, and does have the potential to impact the wetland. Lisa Gilpin, 2358 Pinewood Circle, requested the Commission drive past the subject site, and challenged them to tell her where the wetlands start and where they stop. She stated that it was not possible. She stated that she had children, and worked with Pinewood Elementary, and spent approximately six to eight hours per week, talking to the children about protecting the environment and the wetland, and its importance. She stated that this indicates, if the developer can make some money, it is acceptable to build a house there. She stated that she found this very confusing and disheartening for the children. She stated, in the wetland area, they have seen red fox, and a variety of birds and animals which live in that space, and found it hard to explain to her child why it would be acceptable to eliminate the area for development. She stated that lot 16 was not originally intended for development either. She stated she could not see any purpose for this except money. Tim Meehan,2382 Pinewood Circle,stated he had been a resident of the area for over 15 years. He stated he had attended the meetings concerning this issue for a number of years. He stated that Mrs. Haselius'family was previously opposed to this development, until she found out that she owned the land,and Mr. Peterson's group offered to purchase it from her. He stated he was personally opposed to the development. He stated that Mr. Peterson had indicated that in the 1980's they did not know very much about wetlands. He stated they now know much more about wetlands, and their importance. He stated that the Lake Calhoun reclamation project is buying back houses and businesses, to restore the wetlands, as the water quality has suffered so dramatically due to the development. He stated that he was not in favor of the loss of habitat for deer, pheasant, birds, and Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 raccoons. He added that he believed the majority of the residents were overwhelmingly opposed to this. Cathy Gryzmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated that she lived directly across the street from one of the proposed sites. She stated that she moved into her house in 1991, and spoke with her neighbor, Mrs. Haselius, about constructing a stationary playground on the subject site. She stated she petitioned the Rice Creek Watershed District in 1995 in this regard. She stated she was informed by the Watershed that the entire lot was subject to drainage easement, and no fill material or structures could be placed upon it. She stated that, with a proposal that might generate some tax income,they appear to have changed their mind. She provided the Commission with a copy of a plat map for Edgewood Square. She stated Mrs.Haselius' signed this document, which states, "...have caused the same to be surveyed,platted, and known as Edgewood Square,and do hereby dedicate to the public, for the public use forever, the drainage and utility easements, drive circle, and the roads to be shown on the plat." She stated that this map was dated April of 1983. She stated that she believed that Mrs. Haselius learned she could make some money with the property, and changed her mind about dedicating it to the public. She stated that she had received a copy of the map after her initial proposal to purchase her home,and was told by the Rice Creek Watershed District that those lots would never be built upon. Mr. Meehan stated that he had also been told by his realtor, these lots would never be developed. Gary Collis,2390 Pinewood Circle,stated he had attended the meeting on this matter, the prior year. He stated the Mayor had asked the City Attorney if the City could keep the drainage ditch, and the City Attorney stated they could. He stated, at that time, the Mayor reviewed all of the agreements made at the time of development of the parcel. Mr. Collis stated this area was a ten-acre plot, considered wetland by the State of Minnesota. He stated that if any of it is taken away, it must be mitigated. He added it appeared that Mounds View had no other wetland to replace this. He stated he was not in favor of damaging the wetland any further. He stated they have dug holes in it for drainage ponds on the north end of the wetland, and have developed a street,and a cul-de-sac turn around,which are within the wetland. He stated that this area was never replaced. He stated that houses have been built with backyards encroaching upon the wetlands. He stated that he brought this to the attention of staff, who stated this should have been more closely monitored, and should not have been done. He stated that the proposed development would encroach upon the wetland as well. He stated that the purpose of the wetland is to act as a sponge,explaining that the polluted water is filtered through the wetland to wells, which the residents take water from. He stated he is prepared to go to the State of Minnesota if the wetlands are not replaced. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that he did not disagree, and that they did not want to lose any wetland either. He stated the development of the homes,cul-de-sac,and Edgewood spur, was mitigated by the dredging and deepening of the wetland, which created a pond. He stated this was reviewed by the Corps of Engineers. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 Mr. Collis stated that he had contacted the Department of Natural Resources, who stated that digging holes was not considered mitigation. He stated,when 100 feet of wetland is taken, it must be replaced with 100 feet of wetland. He added that if the area is more than two acres, it must be replaced to 100 percent. He stated that if the City had contacted the Department of Natural Resources, they might not have been allowed to do this. Acting Chair Stevenson stated the Department of Natural Resources was contacted,and there are records regarding this. He added they were concerned as a Commission as they did not desire to lose any wetlands either, and they were satisfied as a Commission that the development was indeed properly mitigated, and allowance was made for the reclamation of the wetland. Lindsey Little, 5389 St. Michael Street, stated he and his family had resided in their house since 1982. He stated he would not be able to see the proposed development from his home. He stated that he had an airplane and he enjoyed flying, and would like to show the Commission the area from that perspective. He stated that it was remarkable,and noted the difference from one month to the next. He inquired,aside from the money, would they be in favor of this proposal. He stated he had grown up in the southwestern portion of the state and liked the open spaces. He stated he would like this area to remain natural, and did not want to see it developed. Commissioner Berke inquired regarding occasions where the neighborhood purchases the land from the developer or property owner, and creates an association in which all the neighbors own the land, and if anything had been investigated in this regard. Ms. Gryzmala stated she had spoken with the original developer in that regard, who indicated that she would have to come up with the back taxes on the property. She stated that, at that time, the delinquent taxes were$1,699.49,and that she was told by the developer to wait, as the property would come up for public auction in 1998. She stated that,once they got the information that they could not build upon it,they decided, as a neighborhood, not to proceed. She stated, at that time, the property was determined to be unbuildable. Commissioner Berke inquired if that was not what they desired. Mrs. Gryzmala stated,at that time,they were considering the construction of a playground. She stated that it could not be built upon, and a playground could not be constructed there, and therefore, she never dreamed that they could build homes upon it. Commissioner Laube asked Commissioner Miller, in light of her membership with the Charter Commission, if they had started the Charter in regard to storm sewer drainage issues, and that the citizen's wanted to leave the wetlands as the drainage areas within Mounds View. Commissioner Miller stated that this was correct. She explained the citizens did not want all of the water to be confined underground, and to provide places above ground for storage and drainage. Commissioner Laube further clarified this was the reason that they started the Charter, which was voted upon by the citizens. Commissioner Laube inquired if staff had requested an engineering firm review the proposal in regard to the construction of a holding pond. Ericson stated that the City's Engineer, SEH, Inc.. was consulted in 1997. He stated the plans were reviewed and found to be acceptable, in that there would not be an issue of impact to the wetland, as the filling would occur outside the delineated area, and Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 the proposal to create additional flood storage capacity would more than compensate for theproposed fill. He stated these same plans were provided to the City Engineers, the prior month, and staff received the same response,which was that there would be no impact to the wetland in regard to flood storage. He added that, from a land use perspective, the depression at the rear of the lot for flood storage would probably not work very well. Mr. Collis stated that three homes located on the corner of the Edgewood subdivision, pumped water out 24 hours per day, in order to pass inspection,and obtain a building permit. He stated that all three of these houses have sump pumps running, and one property owner has his running steadily to keep water from the house. He stated the storm sewer drains into the wetland at that location. He stated they should keep all of the drainage easements they have, and consider that the proposed construction might suffer the same problems. Terry Lulf, 2375 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a new resident with property adjacent to the proposed building site. He stated that he had looked at many properties prior to selecting his house, and chose his property because of the neighborhood,adding that people in this neighborhood take care of their yards, and are concerned with the appearance of their properties. He stated that he was the person with the pit in his backyard. He explained that he chose this property in spite of the pit, as it was the last house on the cul-de-sac, surrounded by woods and a pond. He stated that the proposed construction would alter these qualities of his property, yet, the pit would remain. Mr. Peterson stated that there was no question that Mrs. Haselius and the other parties agreed that there should be drainage and utility easement under the rules that were in effect at that time. He stated there are different rules at this time, Mrs. Haselius owns the property, and the taxes have been paid until recently. He stated, in his opinion, it would not be in good faith for the City to deny her variance, because all of the water issues have not only been resolved, but also improved. He reiterated that there would be no impact to the wetland, and additional storage would be provided for the community. He stated he was prepared to pay Mrs. Haselius $37,000 for the property, and if the neighbors were willing to pay her that amount of money he would remove himself from the equation. Mr. Peterson stated the only reason he would pay that amount of money was that he could sell the lots, however, he would not be disappointed if the people in attendance purchased the land from Mrs. Haselius, and owned the open space themselves. He stated their children could then play on their land, not hers. He stated it was a matter of fundamental fairness, and good faith. Mr.Meehan inquired regarding the average price of a lot in Mounds View. Mr. Peterson stated that there was substantial grading required on this site, impacted by the sewer and water, and a lot of costs in surveying,the engineering that have already been invested, as well as the taxes. He estimated that the value of these lots was approximately $40,000. He stated, however, he was not an appraiser. Mr. Miskowiec stated that these lots were unbuildable,and therefore, this was an unreasonable price. Mr. Peterson stated,if the City was willing to vacate the easement, it would be a fair price, but agreed, in their current condition the lots are worth nothing to Mrs. Haselius. Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the proposal's infringement upon the wetland buffer. Mr. Peterson referred to the site plan, which indicated it was substantially within the 100-foot buffer. He stated that he could provide many examples of similar development, which have been allowed in this buffer,as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council on many occasions. Acting Chair Stevenson stated that the factors of this proposal are different, explaining that wetlands have been developed and mitigated, however, the signing off of City easements has not been a commonplace occurrence. Acting Chair Stevenson closed the floor for public input at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Kaden stated,originally,Mrs.Haselius signed the document indicating that these were permanent easements, and, in light of this, he assumed that both she and the developer were of the understanding that the lots could never be developed by anyone. He inquired if this was an official document. Mr. Peterson stated that there was no question that Mrs. Haselius signed this document, however,it is also true that it is not uncommon for permanent easements to be vacated. He stated the City has the right to vacate a permanent easement. He stated, at the time the easements were granted, and under those conditions, it was viewed to be necessary in perpetuity. He stated that has since changed. He reiterated that the vacation of easements is not an uncommon process. Acting Chair Stevenson inquired if staff required a resolution recommending to the Council that they approve or deny the vacation of the easements. Ericson stated that their recommendation could be put forward in that manner, however, it was not required, and the Planning Commission could indicate their position by motion. Acting Chair Stevenson inquired regarding the Commissioners' opinions on the matter, and asked if they would recommend to the City Council that they not vacate the drainage easements on those two lots. MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Miller to Recommend to the City Council they Not Vacate the Drainage and Utility Easements on Lots 17 and 18, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle). Ayes—7 Nays —0 The motion carried. 8. Special Planning Case No. SP-071-99 Consideration of a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Billboards and amending the Code pertaining to signage in the PF and CRP zoning districts. ORDINANCE NO.638 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER LOTS 17 AND 18,BLOCK 1,EDGEWOOD SQUARE THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby amended to include reference to the following Special Ordinance No. 608: Subdivision 1. All of the following described land is subject to an easement("Drainage Easement")for public utility purposes, as shown on the plat of Edgewood Square, Ramsey County, Minnesota: Lots 17, 18 and 19,Block 1, Edgewood Square, according to the plat filed of record with the Ramsey County Recorder. Subdivision 2. The fee owner of the land subject to the Drainage Easement, Good Value Homes, has requested that vacation of a portion of the Drainage Easement, such portion described as follows: For that portion to be vacated out of the Drainage Easement being Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Edgewood Square, a plat of record situated in the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 18, thence along the west line of said Lot 18 north 00 degrees 02 minutes 59 seconds east, 84.00 feet; thence north 57 degrees 28 minutes 15 seconds east, 39.00 feet; thence south 89 degrees 57 minutes 01 seconds east, 147.14 feet to the east line of said Lot 17; thence along said east line south 00 degrees 02 minutes 59 seconds west,.105.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 17; thence along the south line of said Lots 17 and 18 north 89 degrees 57 minutes 01 seconds west, 180.00 feet to the point of beginning herein. Subdivision 3. There are no public utilities or facilities located in the portion of the Drainage Easement area to be vacated described in Subdivision 2 of this Ordinance. The proposed vacation of the portion of the Drainage Easement therefore will not adversely affect the ability of the City or other utility to maintain, repair, or replace public utilities. Ordinance 638 Page 2 Subdivision 4. The Council finds that there is no longer a public need for that portion of the Drainage Easement to be vacated, as described in Subdivision 2 of this Ordinance. Subdivision 5. The portion of the Drainage Easement, as described in Subdivision 2 of this Ordinance is hereby vacated. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this. day of , 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator SEAL APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney Item No. /0 .46 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: August 23, 1999 Type of Business: P.H. WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda; CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Amending Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code, Entitled "Public Improvements" Date of Report: August 18, 1999 A public hearing is scheduled for 7:20 to consider amending Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code Entitled"Public Improvements". Staff provided Council with a report at the last Council meeting which briefly outlined the possible proposed changes in this chapter, which deals with • assessments. Staff has included the changes to the Ordinance which are in bold print. Blanks have been inserted for the amount of the improvement that will be assessed. I have included the Ordinance for Council's review and comments and a previous staff report identifying various pavement rehab methods and cost estimates. Taken from Staff Report of August.9, 1999: The Ordinance will include blank amounts of the percentage of the assessment for street improvements including total reconstruction, overlays, mill and overlays and recycle and overlays. Also included will be verbiage relating to the percentage of pavement assessed, percentage of curb and gutter assessed, percentage of a MSA street project assessed and language regarding the assessment of improvements performed on a County or State Highway. County Road H2 will also receive turn back funds which will be addressed. The issues of sidewalks/ pathways and mailbox structures can also be discussed and incorporated. Upon final Council approval on the percentages assessed, staff will draft a final copy of the Ordinance for formal approval. The City Attorney will be consulted for the appropriate format and language. This copy is for discussion purposes. Following the public hearing staff requests Council direction as to the final percentages assessed on public improvements. 7/ ichael Ulrich, irectoreof Public Works Item No. Staff Report No. Meeting Date: July 6, 1999 Type of Business: W.K. WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda;CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Review of Streets Policies Date of Report: August 18, 1999 Staff has copied the staff report that was for the public hearing on June 28 to this report. It highlights some of the changes that will be necessary to adopt the various recommendation of the Street Committee. Two major items recommended by the committee were to consider the existing design/width of the particular street section the standard by which future projects would begin at. This change would require a resolution amending the resolution that earlier set the construction standards for all streets. The second recommendation of the committee was to lower the percentage assessed to the property owners from 50%to 20 -25%. This percentage (50%), is the same for water and wastewater main replacement/improvement. This reduction would require an amendment to the Ordinance that established the current percentage. Staff will seek Council's direction for preparation of these amendments following the Public Hearing. Staff has requested budgetary quotes from a couple of construction companies for various pavement rehabilitation methods. These estimates may prove helpful to Council in determining any percentages of assessments for various rehab methods. In an effort to reduce a lump sum street or utility assessment, staff is seeking input from Council regarding a possible wastewater system improvement flat charge and possibly a referendum question on the 2000 election ballot for additional tax increase beyond the levy limits for future street improvements. This question could provide valuable input to the City Council and residents as to the direction the City should proceed in it's future street projects. Staff has received few of the pavement rehabilitation method cost estimates for Council's review and comments. These estimates are based on a street width of 28,just for average calculations. Actual street widths would be adjusted accordingly. The various strategies for rehab are recommended based on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). If the PCI is higher,the required amount of the pavement repair and preparation will be less,thereby lower the amount of the improvement. The improvement estimates are listed from high PCI to low. * Method#1 1 1/2" Overlay @ $3.60 /sq.yd $11.20 per foot for total width $ 5.60 per foot for 1/2 street width(one side) $448.00 improvement cost for typical 80' lot City of Mounds View Staff Report August 18, 1999 Page 2 * Method#2 1" milling with 1 %z." wear overlay $12.75 per foot for total width $6.40 per foot for 1/2 street width(one side) $509.00 improvement cost for typical 80' lot V * Method#3 Recycle existing road, 1 1/2"base+ 1 %2"wear ** $14.95 per foot for total width $7.50 per foot for %2 street width(one side ) $596.00 improvement cost for typical 80' lot ** This estimate does not include a surmountable bituminous curb. * These estimates do not include any utility structure adjustments, driveway apron paving or boulevard and/or landscaping improvements. Staff has also received a budgetary estimate for lining existing sanitary sewer mains in a project area. Lining of the City main lines would obviously not correct any deficiencies or defects in the residential service. This price would be $36.00 per lineal foot for an eight inch main. Utilizing the same scenario as above, the estimates for this improvement are as follows: 8" Sanitary Sewer Main Lining $36.00 per foot for total width $18.00 per foot for 1/2 street width( one side ) $1,440.00 improvement cost for typical 80' lot In light of time schedule for any future improvements and the relatively reasonable expenses associated with any combination of the street rehab methods and sanitary sewer lining, staff would suggest that these type of improvements be assessed at rate of 100 %residential. When the residents wish to have curb and gutter installed, the City might contribute to the costs of the curb and gutter. In an MSA project,the residents could be assessed for the maximum rehab method,together with any utility improvement that might take place. . These are just a few project estimates and one method of financing future street and utility projects. There are as many alternatives as one can think of, each with their own pros and cons. Staff is seeking additional Council input and ideas. Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works ORDINANCE NO. 600 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 202 , SECTION 202 . 09 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE VIEW ENTITLED "PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS" The City of Mounds View ordains : SECTION I Chapter 202 . 09, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is amended to read: Subd. 2 Improvement Type and Apportionment of Cost : a. Street Reconstruction Including Curb and Gutter. The cost of street reconstruction shall be recovered by the adjusted front footage method. The front footage rate shall be determined by dividing the project cost by the total number of adjusted front feet in the project area x the individual adjusted front footage x one-half (%) . The assessments per adjusted front foot may vary depending on the underlying zoning of a parcel . Assessments for residential properties which are on collector or arterial streets, (MSA) shall be assessed for % of the pavement surface equally divided by both sides of the street. shall be adjusted so that the amount of the assessment shall be the same as if the project were constructed to residential street standards . a. l. Residents requesting Curb and Gutter installation on a construction project will be assessed % of the total cost of the Curb and Gutter which will include engineering, additional removals, base and all other associated expenses. a.2 . % of the turn back funds received from Ramsey County will be applied to the new construction or pavement cost of the road that was received. The remaining cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. b. Street Resurfacing. Street resurfacing is commonly known and referred to as street overlaying whereby a new bed of road material such as bituminous is installed over an existing paved road to a specific thickness . Assessments shall be determined by the adjusted front footage method at % percent to properties on both sides of the street. A mill and overlay to an existing paved road will be assessed by the adjusted front footage method at % percent to properties on both sides of the street. A recycle and overlay to an existing paved road will be assessed by the adjusted front footage method at % percent to properties on both sides of the street. c . Sidewalk. Sidewalk improvements may be done in conjunction with a street reconstruction or as a separate project . In any event, cost of sidewalk improvements shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. Sidewalks are generally installed on the City' s major streets, which will connect several neighborhoods and community attractions in a logical pattern. d. Sealcoating. Sealcoating, patching and cracksealing are considered general maintenance activities and the expenses of such acts will be paid for by ad valorem property tax or any other funds available to the City at that time . e . Sanitary Sewer and Water Mains . Repair and replacement of sewer or water mains is usually done in conjunction with a street reconstruction project and the cost of this work should be included as part of the total major street project cost and should also be considered to be included in the rate assessed for street reconstruction. If it is determined that the repair and replacement work results in a greater benefit to some properties and not to others, the Council should consider establishing a different assessment rate based on the benefits received. Sanitary sewer and Water Main replacement will be assessed at %. f . Sanitary Sewer and Water Trunk Improvements . Trunk sewer and water mains are usually designed to carry larger volumes of flow than are necessary within an immediate property area in order to serve additional properties beyond the area of their immediate placement . Therefore, 100 percent (100%) of the cost of trunk improvements will be assessed on a unit basis to all properties within a district deemed to be benefitted from the trunk improvements . g. Sewer and Water Services . Individual sewer and water services benefit only the properties they serve and 100 percent (100%) of their cost shall be assessed to the property for which they are installed. h. Drainage Improvements . Storm drainage and ponding/basin systems are usually constructed to serve a specific drainage or "watershed" district . These drainage districts have trunk lines, which are large diameter pipes that transport large volumes of water from one or more drainage districts . Property within drainage districts that would receive benefit from a trunk storm sewer, would be assessed a unit amount of $400 . 00 per lot for a single family residential lot . This amount would be determined and adjusted annually by resolution using the Engineering News Record (ENR) . Multifamily housing lots that exceed 1/3 acre would be assessed based on the number of acres, multiplied by the unit cost of $1, 200 . 00 per acre . Commercial / Industrial property would be assessed based on the number of acres that are determined to benefit from the trunk line multiplied by the unit cost of $1, 200 . 00 per acre to a maximum amount of three (3) acres or $3 , 600 . 00 . The remaining cost will be paid for by the Surface Water Utility and/or by an ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. Should a project be • initiated on a particular street that requires storm sewer laterals which would be connected to the trunk lines, the Surface Water Utility would fund these expenses . I . Special Conditions . Special consideration shall be given to the "age" of a street or utility system when determining the proportion of cost to be assessed to benefitted properties . If it is necessary to reconstruct or resurface a street or perform major repair/replacement work on sewer and water utilities, before a reasonable amount of time (10 to 12 years for resurfacing, 12 to 17 years for partial reconstruction and 17 to 25 years for total reconstruction) the assessment shall be calculated on a pro-rated basis . The remaining cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost • recovery. J. In projects involving new street construction, and mill and overlays, mailboxes will be grouped on gang posts in numbers logical to the spacing required. This practice will insure the proper placement of the mailboxes,reduce potential roadside hazards, and generally clean up the edge of the street. The cost of the new posts and installation will be added to the project. Residents of overlays and mill and overlays may request the new posts and installation, which will be added to the cost of the project. Section II . Chapter 202 . 09 Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is amended to Read: Subd. 3 METHODS OF ASSESSMENT a. The nature of an improvement determines the method of assessment . The objective is to choose an assessment method which will arrive at a reasonable, fair and equitable assessment which will be uniform upon the same class of property within the assessed area. The most frequently recognized assessment methods are : the unit assessment, the front footage assessment and the area assessment . Depending upon the individual project, any one or a combination of these methods may be utilized to arrive at an appropriate cost distribution. City staff will consider all methods and weigh their applicability to the project and present a recommendation to the City Council in the form of a mock assessment roll (or rolls) . A description of each assessment and its corresponding policy application is presented. A separate section (Section III) will identify the appropriate matchup of method with a specific type of project and analyze why each is generally used. The purpose of assessment formulas is to allocate assessed costs among benefitted properties, the formula should result in a allocation of assessments which is reasonably related to the benefit received. Any one predetermined formula will not be appropriate in all cases because of circumstances unique to the relationship between the specific project and the specific properties benefitted. When considering an assessment method or formula for any given project, it may be necessary to combine assessment methods or to modify the methods described below. Therefore, the following description of methods of assessments should be regarded as guidelines, which may not be appropriate in all cases . b. Unit Assessment . A unit assessment shall be derived by dividing the total project cost by the number of Residential Equivalent Density (RED) units in the project area. A RED unit is defined as a single family residential unit. All platted and unplatted property will assigned RED unit values equivalent to the underlying zoning. When the existing land use is less than the highest and best permitted use, the Council may consider the current use as well as the full potential of land use in determining the appropriate number of RED units . Otherwise, the following RED chart will apply on a per unit basis, subject to adjustment by the Council for any inequities : Single Family 1 . 00 RED Duplex 1 . 00 RED Condominium 0 . 80 RED Multifamily (3 units or more) 0 . 80 RED Townhouse 0 . 80 RED Commercial 2 . 00 Units Industrial 2 . 00 Units The unit approach has proven to be the best method in those instances whereby the improvement largely benefits • everyone to the same degree and the cost of the improvement is not generally affected by parcel size . c . Area Assessment . The assessable area shall be expressed in terms of the number of acres or the number of square feet subject to assessment . When determining the assessable area, the following considerations will be given: (1) Ponding Assessment Consideration. Lakes, ponds and swamps may be considered a part of the assessable area of a parcel . (2) Road Right-of-Way Assessment Consideration. Up to 20 percent (20%) of the gross acreage may be deducted for street right-of-way purposes within unplatted parcels of five acres or more depending upon the parcel configuration and is only applicable to single family • residential use. Parcels of less than five acres may not qualify and may be assessed full acreage. The reason for this size restriction is that, in most instances, parcels of less than five acres cannot support an internal public road system. (3) Park Dedication Assessment Consideration. When park land is dedicated as part of a residential development, as required by Subdivisions Code - Chapter 1204 . 02, the developer shall not be assessed an acreage charge on the portion of land dedicated. d. Front Footage Assessment . The actual physical dimensions of a parcel abutting an improvement (ie . , street, sewer, water, etc . ) will generally not be construed as the frontage utilized to calculate the assessment for a particular parcel . Rather, an "adjusted front footage" will be determined. The purpose of this • method is to equalize assessment calculations for lots of similar size . Individual parcels by their very nature differ considerably in shape and area. The following procedures will apply when calculating adjusted front footage. The selection of the appropriate procedures will be determined by the specific configuration of the parcel . All measurements will be scaled from available plat and section maps and will be rounded down to the nearest % foot dimension with any excess fraction deleted. e . Categorical type descriptions are as follows : Standard Lots Rectangular Variation Lots Triangular Lots Cul-de-sac Lots Curved Lots Irregularly Shaped Lots Corner Lots Flag Lots Double Frontage Lots The ultimate objective of these procedures is to arrive at a fair and equitable distribution of cost whereby consideration is given to lot size and parcels are comparably assessed. • SECTION III . This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. Introduced and read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on April 28, 1997 . Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 12 day of May, 1997 . ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) ADMINISTRATOR jog LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC. (L.E.L.S) Local No. 232 January 1, 1998 - December 31, 1999 1 f Article 23 Cafeteria Plan 14 Article 24 Waiver 14 Article 25 . Duration 15 Appendix A Wages 16 3 ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is entered into as of January 1, 1998 between the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, hereinafter called the EMPLOYER, and the LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC. (L.E.L.S.), LOCAL NO. 232,hereinafter called the UNION. It is the intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT to: 1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT'S interpretation and/or application; and 1.2 Place in written form the parties' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment for the duration of this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE 2 RECOGNITION 2.1 The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the exclusive representative, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 179A.03, Subdivision 14, for all police personnel in the following job classification: Sergeants 2.2 In the event the EMPLOYER and the UNION are unable to agree as to the inclusion or exclusion of a new or modified job class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of Mediation Services for determination. ARTICLE 3 DEFINITIONS 3.1 UNION: The Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (L.E.L.S.), Local No. 232. 3.2 UNION MEMBER: A member of the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. L.E.L.S), Local No. 232. 3.3 EMPLOYEE: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit. 3.4 DEPARTMENT: The City of Mounds View Police Department. 3.5 EMPLOYER: The City of Mounds View. 3.6 CHIEF: The Chief of the Mounds View Police Department. 3.7 UNION OFFICER: Officer elected or appointed by Law Enforcement Labor Services, 4 Inc. (L.E.L.S.). 3.8 OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER in excess of the employee's SCHEDULED SHIFT. 3.9 SCHEDULED A consecutive work period including rest breaks and a lunch break. SHIFT: 3.10 REST BREAKS: Periods during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.11 LUNCH BREAK: A period during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.12 STRIKE: Concerted action in failing to report for duty,the willful absence from one's position,the stoppage of work, slow-down, or abstinence in whole or part from the full, faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment for the purposes of inducing, influencing or coercing a change in the conditions or compensation or the rights,privileges or obligations of employment. ARTICLE 4 EMPLOYER SECURITY The UNION agrees that during the life of this AGREEMENT that the UNION will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow-down or other interruption of or interference with the normal functions of the EMPLOYER. ARTICLE 5 EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all manpower, facilities, and equipment;to establish functions and programs;to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this AGREEMENT. 5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify, establish or eliminate. 5 Article 1 Purpose of this Agreement 4 Article 2 Recognition 4 Article 3 Definitions 4 Article 4 Employer Security 5 Article 5 Employer Authority 5 Article 6 Union Security 6 Article 7 Employee Rights - Grievance Procedure 6 Article 8 Savings Clause 9 Article 9 Seniority 9 Article 10 Discipline 10 Article 11 Constitutional Protection 10 Article 12 Work Schedules 10 Article 13 Court Duty 11 Article 14 Working out of Classification 11 Article 15 Insurance 12 Article 16 Standby Pay 12 Article 17 Uniforms 12 Article 18 Vacation 12 Article 19 Sick 13 Article 20 Severance Pay 14 Article 21 Holidays 14 Article 22 Injury on Duty 14 2 • ARTICLE 6 UNION SECURITY 6.1 The EMPLOYER shall deduct from the wages of employees who authorize such a deduction in writing an amount necessary to cover monthly UNION dues. Such monies shall be remitted as directed by the UNION. 6.2 The UNION may designate employees from the bargaining unit to act as Steward and an alternate and shall inform the EMPLOYER in writing of such notice and changes in the position of Steward and/or alternate. 6.3 The EMPLOYER shall make space available on the employee bulletin board for posting UNION notice(s) and announcement(s). 6.4 The UNION agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgements brought or issued against the EMPLOYER as a result of any action taken or not taken by the EMPLOYER under the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE 7 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 7.1 Definition of Grievance A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT. 7.2 Union Representatives The EMPLOYER will recognize Representatives designated by the UNION as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities established by the Article. The UNION shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the name of such UNION representatives and of their successors when so designated as provided by 6.2 of this AGREEMENT. 7.3 Processing of a Grievance It is recognized and accepted by the UNION and the EMPLOYER that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the employees and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such employee duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved employee and a UNION representative shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss of pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal working hours provided that the employee and the UNION Representative have notified and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the 6 EMPLOYER. 7.4 Procedure Grievances, as defined by Section 7.1 shall be resolved in conformance with the following procedure: Step 1. An employee claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of the AGREEMENT shall, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred,present such grievance to the employee's supervisor as designated by the EMPLOYER. The EMPLOYER-designated representative will discuss and give an answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten(10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the AGREEMENT, allegedly violated,the remedy requested, and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the EMPLOYER-designated representative's final answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the UNION within ten(10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 2. If appealed,the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER-designated Step 2 Representative. The EMPLOYER-designated Step 2 Representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER'S Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten(10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER-designated Representative's final Step 2 answer. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by the UNION within ten(10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 3. If appealed,the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER-designated Step 3 Representative. The EMPLOYER-designated Representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER'S answer in writing within ten(10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3 may be appealed to Step 4 within ten(10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER-designated Representative's final answer to Step 3. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten(10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 3.a. If the grievance is not resolved at Step 3 of the grievance procedure, the parties,by mutual agreement, may submit the matter to mediation with the 7 appeal thereof within the specified time limits,the UNION may elect to treat the grievance as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual written agreement of the EMPLOYER and the UNION in each step. 7.7 Choice of Remedy If, as a result of the written EMPLOYER response in Step 3 of the grievance remains unresolved, and if the grievance involves discipline of an employee who has completed the required probationary period, the grievance may be appealed either to Step 4 of Article 7 or to Civil Service. If appealed to Civil Service the grievance is not subject to the arbitration procedure as provided in Step 4 of Article 7. The aggrieved employee shall indicate in writing which procedure is to be utilized - Step 4 of Article 7 or Civil Service - and shall sign a statement to the effect that the choice precludes the aggrieved employee from making a subsequent appeal through Step 4 of Article 7. ARTICLE 8 SAVINGS CLAUSE This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the City of Mounds View. In the event any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgement or decree no appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provisions shall be voided. All other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be renegotiated at the written request of either party. ARTICLE 9 SENIORITY 9.1 Seniority shall be determined by the employee's length of continuous employment as a sergeant in the Mounds View Police Department. Seniority rosters may be maintained by the Chief on the basis of time in grade and time within specific classifications. 9.2 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis of seniority. Employees shall be recalled from layoff on the basis of seniority. An employee on layoff shall have an opportunity to return to work within two years of the time of the employee's layoff before any new employee is hired. 9.2.a. During a probationary period a newly hired or rehired employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. During the probationary period, a promoted or reassigned employee may be replaced in their previous position at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. 9.3 Senior employees will be given preference with regard to transfer,job classification assignments and promotions when the job-relevant qualifications of employees are equal. 9 Bureau of Mediation Services. Submitting the grievance to mediation preserves timeliness for Step 4 of the grievance procedure. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten(10) calendar days of mediation shall be considered waived. Step 4. A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed to Step 4 by the UNION shall be submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as amended. The selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the "Rules Governing the Arbitration of Grievances" as established by the Bureau of Mediation Services. 7.5 Arbitrator's Authority A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend,modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall have no authority to make decisions on any other issue not so submitted. B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws, rules, or regulations having the force and effect of the law. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the. EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the facts of the grievance presented. C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the EMPLOYER and the UNION provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made,providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings,the cost shall be shared equally. 7.6 Waiver If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered "waived". If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the EMPLOYER'S last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance or an 8 9.4 Senior qualified employees shall be given shift assignment preference. 9.5 One continuous vacation period shall be selected on the basis of seniority until March 15 of each calendar year. ARTICLE 10 DISCIPLINE 10.1 The EMPLOYER will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one or more of the following forms: a) oral reprimand; b) written reprimand; c) suspension; d) demotion; or e) discharge 10.2 Suspensions, demotions and discharges will be in written form. 10.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of discharge which are to become part of an employee's personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the employee. Employees and the UNION will receive a copy of such reprimands and/or notices. 10.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times under the direct supervision of the EMPLOYER. 10.5 Discharges will be preceded by a five (5) day suspension without pay. 10.6 Employees will not be questioned concerning an investigation of disciplinary action unless the employee has been given an opportunity to have a UNION representative present at such questioning. 10.7 Grievances relating to this Article shall be initiated by the UNION in Step 3 of the grievance procedure under ARTICLE VII. ARTICLE 11 CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION Employees shall have the rights granted to all citizens of the United States and Minnesota State Constitutions. ARTICLE 12 WORK SCHEDULES 12.1 The normal work year is two thousand and eighty (2,080)hours to be accounted for by 10 each employee through: a) hours worked on assigned shifts; b) holidays; c) assigned training: d) authorized leave time 12.2 Holidays and authorized leave time is to be calculated on the basis of the actual length of time of the assigned shifts. 12.3 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee of a minimum or maximum number of hours the EMPLOYER may assign employees. ARTICLE 13 COURT DUTY 13.1 An employee who is required to appear in Court during the employee's scheduled off- duty time shall receive a minimum of three (3)hours pay at time and one-half(1 '/2) times the employee's base pay rate if the majority of the hours worked during the shift fall between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M., otherwise the employee shall receive two hours. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for Court appearance does not qualify the employee for the two (2)/three (3)hour minimum. 13.2 Employees notified by the employer to be on court standby status will be compensated a total of two (2) hours (or three hours if majority of hours worked during the shift fall between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M.)based upon the employee's normal hourly rate for each day the employee is to standby for court duty but is not called into court. In consideration for the daily compensation, the employee shall be available to appear in the appropriate court, in uniform ,to testify with minimum delay when telephonically notified by the employer. Any employee on court standby duty who cannot be notified by telephone of the need for a court appearance will not be compensated for that day. 13.3 The two (2)/three(3) hours compensation for court standby duty will not be given if the employer has notified the employee of a cancellation of the status no later than 1700 hours on the day preceding the court date. Unless notified to the contrary, standby status shall continue for a maximum two consecutive days at which time the employee shall contact the employer by the day following initiation of standby status,who will continue or cancel standby status, as required. Court standby pay will not be granted on a day when the employee is compensated for a court appearance. ARTICLE 14 WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to assume the full responsibilities and authority of a higher job classification shall receive the salary schedule for the higher classification for the 11 duration of the assignment. ARTICLE 15 INSURANCE 15.1 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of$340 per month per employee for employee and dependent group health and life insurance for calendar year 1998 and maximum of$350 per month per employee for employee and dependent group health and life insurance for calendar year 1999. 15.2 Additional insurance: The employee may designate a portion of the $340 maximum provided in 1998 and $350 of the maximum provided in 1999 in Article 16.1 to supplemental life insurance through City offered plans. ARTICLE 16 STANDBY PAY Employees required by the EMPLOYER to standby shall be compensated for such standby time at the rate of 1 hour compensatory time off for each hour on standby. ARTICLE 17 UNIFORMS Uniforms: The EMPLOYER shall provide a uniform allowance of$530 for calendar year 1998 and a uniform allowance of$544 for 1999. Employees who have completed one year of service with the EMPLOYER will be eligible to receive the uniform allowance. The uniform allowance will be prorated for employees who work less than one full year. The EMPLOYER will determine and provide an initial issue of uniforms and equipment to newly hired officers. ARTICLE 18 VACATION 18.1 Vacation Pay: If an employee desires vacation pay in advance of vacation,the employee must give the EMPLOYER at least three weeks notice in writing. 18.2 Carry Over and Waiver of Vacation Leave: Ten days of vacation may be carried over to the next year, provided that time be used no later than April 30th of the following year. 18.3 Consecutive Vacation Days: If the employee is entitled to two weeks vacation,the employee must take one week consecutively. If an employee is entitled to three or four weeks vacation, the employee must take two weeks with five (5) day blocks or greater. 18.4 Vacation Schedule: Vacation will be granted employees according to the following schedule: 1 through 5 years 10 days 12 After 5 years through 10 years 15 days After 11 years 16 days After 12 years 17 days After 13 years 18 days After 14 years 19 days After 15 years 20 days ARTICLE 19 SICK LEAVE 19.1 Eligibility: Sick Leave with Pay. Any employee who has been continuously employed for a period of one year or longer may in any calendar year be granted sick leave not to exceed thirteen(13) working days with full pay. An employee may borrow up to thirty (30) days of sick leave with the approval of and under conditions set out by the EMPLOYER. Sick leave is defined to mean the absence of an employee because of illness, exposure to contagious disease, attendance of such employee on a member of the employee's immediate family requiring the care or attendance of such employee, or death in the immediate family of the employee. The EMPLOYER may in any case require evidence in the form of a certificate from the employee's physician for verification of the reason for any employee's absence during the time for which sick leave is granted. 19.2 Accrual and Use. Sick leave may be accumulated to a maximum of 120 days. 19.3 Proof Required. In order to be eligible for sick leave with pay an employee must: a. Report promptly to the employee's department head the reason for such absence. b. Keep the department head informed of the employee's condition, if the absence is more than three (3) days duration. c. Submit a medical certificate for any absence exceeding three(3) days if required by the EMPLOYER. d. Penalty. Claiming sick leave when physically fit, except as permitted in this section,may be cause for disciplinary action, including transfer, suspension, demotion or dismissal. e. A regular employee who meets the other requirements of this section and who receives Worker's Compensation payments shall be granted accrued sick leave pay in the amount of the difference between Worker's Compensation payments and the employee's net salary. 13 ARTICLE 20 SEVERANCE PAY 20.1 Severance pay shall be granted in the amount of fifty percent(50%) of unused sick leave to employees who have completed ten years of service. Upon death of the employee, the beneficiary of the employee shall be paid the benefit. 20.2 Employees who have completed ten years of service and retire may elect, in lieu of severance pay as provided in Section 20.1,to have the employer use sixty-five percent (65%) of the employee's accumulated and banked sick leave for the retiree's group insurance premium for as long as the funds are available up to the retiree's 65th birthday. ARTICLE 21 HOLIDAYS All employees shall receive the following holidays: New Years Day, Martin Luther King Day, Presidents Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day After Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. Employees assigned to work on these holidays shall receive an extra one-half hour of pay for any hours worked. ARTICLE 22 INJURY ON DUTY Employees injured during the performance of their duties for the EMPLOYER and thereby rendered unable to work for the EMPLOYER will be paid the difference between the employee's regular pay and Worker's Compensation insurance paymentsfor a period not to exceed ninety (90) working days per injury, not charged to the employee's vacation, sick leave or other accumulated paid benefits, after a three (3)working day initial waiting period per injury. The three (3) working day waiting period shall be charged to the employee's sick leave account less Worker's Compensation insurance payments. Employees drawing Worker's Compensation benefits will not receive supplementary IOD pay or sick leave pay which provides for more after tax take-home pay than the employee made while working. ARTICLE 23 CAFETERIA PLAN The EMPLOYER will evaluate, and if feasible within federal and state laws and Internal Revenue Service regulations, implement a Cafeteria Plan benefit program. ARTICLE 24 WAIVER X24.1 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this AGREEMENT. The EMPLOYER and the UNION each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet 14 and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of this employment referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered in the AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this AGREEMENT, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time this contract was negotiated or executed. ARTICLE 25 DURATION This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of January 1, 1998, and shall remain in full force and effect until the thirty-first day of December, 1999. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on this day of 1998. FOR THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW FOR L.E.L.S. "OM& • Illbk C.±44/7-} 15 APPENDIX A WAGES 1. Effective January 1, 1998 (3.00% of 1997 5 step compensation schedule) Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Starting After 6 months After 12 months After 24 months After 36 months 3,789.60 4026.45 4,263.29 4,500.00 4,737.00 2. Effective January 1, 1999 (3.00% of 1998 wages) Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Starting After 6 months After 12 months After 24 months After 36 months 3,903.29 4,147.24 4,391.19 4,635.00 4,879.11 16 Item No. /0 1 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: August 23, 1999 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 5360, a resolution authorizing the abatement of a nuisance commercial vehicle parked in violation of City Code at 7656 Greenfield Avenue. Date of Report: August 13, 1999 Background: The City of Mounds View has been attempting to resolve a nuisance code violation present at Michael Guy's property located at 7656 Greenfield Avenue since becoming aware of the situation on June 4th of this year. Since before that date, there has been an older, unlicensed commercial vehicle parked in the yard which violates three different sections of the nuisance Code. Staff has sent numerous letters to the property owner requesting that the vehicle be removed. There has been no response from the property owner, nor has the vehicle moved in the ensuing months. On June 28, 1999, after failing to comply with the City's requests to move the vehicle, staff issued Mr. Guy a Ramsey County Court Citation, charging him with three counts of violating the nuisance code. On July 21, 1999, after still no response from the property owner and no change to the status of the vehicle, staff issued Mr. Guy a second Ramsey County Court Citation. A hearing was schedule before a Ramsey County judge, for which Mr. Guy failed to appear. As a result, and as is the custom upon failing to appear for a court hearing, warrants were issued for Mr. Guy's arrest. As of the date of this writing, the truck is still parked in Mr. Guy's front yard. Discussion: Section 607.08 of the Nuisance Code outlines the required steps to effectuate an abatement of nuisances and corresponding cost recovery. These steps are as follows: 1. Upon determination that a public nuisance exists, the person committing and maintaining such a public nuisance shall be notified in writing to terminate and abate said nuisance and remove such conditions or remedy such defects. The notice shall require the owner or occupant of such premises, or both, to take reasonable steps within a reasonable amount of time to be designated in the notice, but the maximum time of the removal of shall not in any event exceed thirty (30) days. City of Mounds View Staff Report August 12, 1999 Page 2 2. If the owner does not comply with the notice within the time specified, the City Council may, after providing notice to the owner and an opportunity to be heard, authorize for abating the nuisance. The notice to the property owner shall be served at least ten(10) days before the date stated in the notice when the Council will consider the matter. 3. The property owner who has caused the public nuisance shall be personally liable to the City for the full cost of abatement, including administrative costs. As soon as the work has been completed and the cost determined, a bill will be mailed it to the owner. 4. If the cost, or any portion of it, has not been paid within thirty(30) days after the date of the bill, the unpaid cost may be certified against the property to which the cost is attributable. Before certification against the property, reasonable notice of the impending certification and an opportunity to be heard by the City Council must be given to the property owner. Thereafter, the unpaid cost may be certified to the County Auditor for collection along with current taxes in the following year or in such annual installments, not exceeding ten (10), as the City Council may determine in each case. Recommendation: Staff has given Mr. Guy numerous opportunities and a significant length of time to correct the nuisance code violation present on his property. To date, Mr. Guy has not contacted the City to make arrangements for resolving this violation, nor has he appeared in court to address the issue. For this reason, staff is recommending that the City Council approve Resolution 5360, a resolution authorizing the abatement of a nuisance vehicle at 7656 Greenfield Avenue, property owned by Michael Guy. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\USERS\JIME\SHARE\GUY.RPT CM OF I11©MNDS Phone: (612)717-4000 E vv Fax: (612) 784-3462 fr •A vv °cress PartnerS���S August 12, 1999 Michael Guy 7656 Greenfield Avenue Mounds View,MN 55112 RE: City Council Abatement Hearing Dear Mr. Guy: You are hereby notified that an abatement hearing has been scheduled with the Mounds View City Council at their meeting at 7:00 p.m., Monday, August 23, 1999. The City Council meets at City Hall in the Council chambers, located at 2401 Highway 10,Mounds View, MN 55112. At that meeting, staff will be requesting that the Council authorize abatement of the nuisance vehicle in your front yard. Upon authorization by the Council, City staff will make arrangements to have the vehicle removed from the property, at your expense. You are encouraged to attend this meeting and make any statements or presentations which you feel would be relevant to this abatement request. Your failure to appear, however, will not invalidate any action taken by the Council nor will it nullify your financial obligation resulting from said abatement. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the proposed action, please call me at 612-717-4022. Sincerely, C James Ericson Planning Associate j�PRINTED WITH 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 �l SOY INK TM _ recycled paper Equal Opportunity Employer MEMORANDUM MEMO TO: Ramsey County Court FROM: James Ericson, Planning Associate, City of Mounds View DATE: July 21, 1999 SUBJECT: ISSUANCE OF COURT CITATION TO MICHAEL ANDREA GUY, OWNER OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7656 GREENFIELD AVENUE ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS TO: Michael Andrea Guy 7656 Greenfield Avenue Mounds View, MN 55112 CITATION NUMBERS: 99-101250 CHARGE: Non-compliance with the following sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code as follows: • Section 607.06, Subd. 3c(1), requires that all vehicles be parked upon an improved surface. • Section 607.06, Subd.6d, requires that all vehicles display valid and current license plates. • Section 607.06, Subd. 3d, prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles in residential districts. BACKGROUND: The City has been attempting to resolve a nuisance code violations pertaining to an unlicensed, commercial vehicle at 7656 Greenfield Avenue. The City continues to receive complaints regarding the vehicle that is parked there. The City has sent three letters and Court Citation No. 99-101249 to the property owner in an attempt to gain resolution, all of which is attached for the Court's reference, and has performed repeated reinspections. REQUESTS: The City of Mounds View requests that fines be levied upon the property owner for failure to abide by the above sections of the municipal code, (One citation, three counts total) each of which constitutes a misdemeanor. The City of Mounds View also requests that the violation be corrected immediately and that a condition be filed preventing future reoccurrence by imposing suspended fines or jail time. C:\OFFICE\W PW IN\WPDOCS\99NUISNC\7656GREE.MM2 cITYDF.MOUn1OS VIEh� 99_ ,� 05 120 STATE OF MINNESOTA-RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURTY COMPLAINT TCIS# The undersigned,being duly sworn, upon his oath deposes and says. On the 2�� dayof `t V Ly 91 e Phone# Parent'snname, ,19 ,at D•Q0 A M_hours if juvenile st. 7CDSC 4etEENciaL..c> Avg Apt.# r p Name Gvy i ?' ICI4 kEL hND.2Ea Address{ City 61�IJt�3 ftE l State/414 Zip Code 55 ii Ti OCO JO "T�— D.L. Race Birth Date D.L.No. State Ht. Wt. Sex_I_DID.IN THE CITY OF:, i unlawfully(Operate) icense No. Ulf kripu)t7 19 State_ Make GMC. Color 012A p.J E aw01,11) , UtEH! k1�t 7G,56 GRenY� 1 e� j}VECity of Violation Location of offense/Meter No.: located in the County and State aforesaid,and did then and there commit the following offense: }- ❑ Booked 0 Owner 0 Passenger 0 Driver CN# iStatute 0 Ordinance l� Description GM 0 In Accident ii i.[,o-i.o&. Sil�d 3Cc:�1 - �! fit: In a,r 0 Hazanger rdous Life oa property d ❑ PI:Personal Injury ❑ Hazardous Materials ❑ PD:Property Damage Placarded is 6067;04?) 51)bei. 3d •- °amine-eclat Ve.Al•GIe in et ge57deM1J-,4I A154; 0 Pedestrian 0 Commercial Vehicle ff 3, 16,07.04,Sak\- U'AltCeAsed 1v&(Atck ❑ Fatal ❑ Motorcycle Unsafe Conditions: SPEED:MS 169.14 subd.2(a)(3) mph IN A mph ZONE. Specify PARKING EXPIRED NO PARK RUSH HOUR TRUCK EXPIRED HANDICAP FIRE SNOW FIRE OTHER VIOLATIONS: ❑ METER ❑ OVERTIME ❑ZONE ❑ZONE ❑ ZONE ❑ PLATES ❑ ZONE ❑ HYDRANT ❑ EMERG.ORD. ❑ LANE ❑ ILLEGAL PARKING I PROMISE TO RESPOND TO THIS CITATION WITHIN 14 DAYS 0 HOUSING COURT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT,IF I FAIL,A WARRANT FOR MY ARREST WILL BE ISSUED AND NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO Citing r° n e ',.�.. Cieliptui f v THE STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE DIVISION. �wr��ey ✓n vvr+" Number 11." Citing D La/, Officer Dept. PROBABLE CAUSE STATEMENT The COMPLAINANT beingA dulyY sworn,makes complaint to the above named Court that the facts stated below establish probable cause to believe that the Defendant commlTted fhe offense described above. '4L, ❑ PICTURE DL. - I THE clrY REj oesTS F,NES Be L6veee. VPUN PifoP1try ©WA;eg A:54 IUU'lSfrac Co0& 1,10i-Ar1d/JS C 3 tall N`i-5) 14N1 D F Rr i W K E -ro C_b et c7. Vl O uA-1-1,0 N$ 1:,* COMPLAINANT APPROVAL TO PROSECUTE DATE JUDICIAL OFFICER j .!,,,z.-‘2,,,,,..%',:,;:;: ‘:':: ,.*'` " ;. .$ r .,C...',,.'ti.,,y may, `".•�, " ^' .2 \ ''i.`: .. .�1.`:% `'-tie``, e 4` 1 :y ♦ 2. • • COW OF Ill©UNDS A Phone: (612)717-4000 a ��p Fax: (612)784-3462 •A Uvv ~° ss Partners July 21, 1999 Michael Guy 7656 Greenfield Avenue Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Truck Parked in Yard at 7656 Greenfield Dear Mr. Guy: As it was stated in the letter sent to you on June 28, 1999, the City of Mounds View was going to reinspect your property after July 5, 1999 to verify that the unlicensed commercial vehicle parked in your front yard in the grass has been removed. Staff drove by your property on three occasions since issuing you Court Citation No. 99-101249, the last time being July 19, 1999, each time observing the unmoved truck parked in the yard. To date I have not received any contact from you regarding this truck or why it continues to be parked in your yard. The City continues to receive complaints about this vehicle, which is in violation of the City Code first and foremost because it is a commercial vehicle. Commercial vehicles are not allowed to be parked in a residential district of the City. In addition, the vehicle is unlicensed and it is parked in the grass, further violating the Code. Please find enclosed Ramsey County Court Citation No. 99-101250 which details three nuisance code violation counts. Your immediate response to this by removing the vehicle in question will prevent additional court citations from being issued. If you have any questions about this, you may contact me at 612-717-4022. Sincerely, James Ericson Planning Associate encl. -6 PRINTED WITH 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 «' SOY INK TM recycled paper Equal Opportunity Employer • • • CITY OF 99- 11249 The u dersiOF gned MINNESOTA duly sworn,upoOnUhiiss o h deposes and says: POLICE DISTRICT COURT TCIS# �2 i-(, -�^� Phone# • if juv juvenile name, On the ,� day of s.3 u it - 19 f ,at 'C© hours St. "16)5G G�?e_wnsr"f;c,-L7 ve Apt.# Name G U y, rt' C H�4 Ct. i N A;2 ti Address{r HOU+;;+.s ISS VIEW l City D.L State Zip Cade 5. Race Birth Date °CC- D.L No. State HL Wt. Sex_/_DID.IN THE CITY OF:, unlawfully(Operate)(Park)License No. Un %`t 4u1 I'I 19_State Make &M C. Color O a q t•.:4 e• M G U rs.175 Location of offense/Meter No.: 1.0 5 4 6+1 ,VY City of Violation located in the County and State aforesaid,and did then and there commit the following offense: 0 Booked 0 Owner 0 Passenger }yy,���,,, g ,❑ Driver• CN# Statute 0 Ordinance l Description GM 0 In Accident 0 Endanger Ude or property 11 '1 ❑ PI:Personal Injury ❑ Hazardous Materials I 4.10'7,0.6 t St1 kir! C ❑PD:Property Damage Placarded 2. 601. 0C* , 5ob+c1 3 a -- ecointneriaatl Hent de in ❑ Pedestrian 0 Commercial Vehicle 0 Fatal 0 Motorcycle . . 3. 42(.1.1. 04.o, Sob a• +, - Unsafe Conditions: Specify SPEED:MS 169.14 subd.2(a)(3) mph IN A _mph ZONE • • PARKING EXPIRED NO PARK RUSH HOUR TRUCK EXPIRED HANDICAP FIRE SNOW FIRE OTHER VIOLATIONS: ❑ METER ❑OVERTIME ❑ ZONE ❑ZONE ❑ ZONE ❑ PLATES ❑ ZONE ❑ HYDRANT ❑ EMERG.ORD. ❑ LANE. ❑ ILLEGAL PARKIN( I PROMISE TO RESPOND TO THIS CITATION WITHIN 14 DAYS 0 HOUSING COURT ' • AND I UNDERSTAND THAT,IF I FAIL A WARRANT FOR MY at ARREST WILL BE ISSUED AND NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO I..'f'- t.OiLI N a, THE STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE DIVISION. Officer ,}l�4+,t (.I•/ Number ii CIL Dept.ng !)Y,P••�-, PROBABLE CAUSE STATEMENT1e COMPLAINANT being dui sworn,makes gomSlaint to the above named Court that the facts stated below establish probable cause to believe t the Defendant commstted the offense described above. • 0 PICTURE DL: T#I e! C. I T- 3'C E u 't' i=i",e 5 i ? i,.E'J I E i'J I,5 s>+,t 1 12 AD c o.-r v C.:i,J t.i e t^? VIi is AIn 0Ut1+5 .J CF- NVii-5.A1,3Ce Cope. Ve.ritCLe cc,3 11) 1-3E f ;;;x;'d "t9 a * COMPLAINANT APPROVAL TO PROSECUTE DATE JUDICIAL OFFICER P arr OF 006 • Phone: (612)717-4000 . Il EVF Fax: (612)784-3462 •A tx\IS dress •Partnets- June 28, 1999 Michael Guy 7656 Greenfield Avenue ' Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Truck Parked in Yard at 7656 Greenfield Dear Mr. Guy: On June 8, 1999, and June 16, 1999, the City sent you letters concerning the commercial vehicle parked in your yard located at 7656 Greenfield Avenue. 'Staff performed a reinspection of your . property today and observed that the truck is still present. As I stated in the letter dated June 16, 1999, staff was going to reinspect your property and if the vehicle remained, you would be issued a Ramsey County Court Citation. Please find enclosed Citation number 99-101249 which charges you with three counts of violating the City's nuisance code, each count punishable by as much as a$700 fine. You are still responsible for removing the vehicle, and staff will reinspect in one week to verify your compliance with the Code. If the truck is still present on your property after July 5, 1999, you may be issued additional court citations If you have any questions about this, please call me at 717-4022. Sincerely, James Ericson Planning Associate - cc: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director A PRIHTEO WITHI 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 'i"' cow OF 1 Phone: (612)717-4000 �� f�� Fax: (612)784-3462 A r ere tet• Partne • tet June 16, 1999 • Michael Guy 7656 Greenfield Avenue Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Truck Parked in Yard at 7656 Greenfield • Dear Mr. Guy: • On June 8, 1999, the City sent you a letter concerning Code violations present at your property • located at 7656 Greenfield Avenue. Staff performed a reinspection of your property today and observed that while the grass has been cut, the older, unlicensed GMC truck is still parked in the yard. • As was mentioned in the letter dated June 8, 1999, no vehicle is allowed to be parked in a yard off of a driveway. In addition, the Code prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles in a residential district for more than two hours at a time and prohibits the parking of any vehicle that is not properly licensed. The truck violates these three code provisions. The City is again asking for your cooperation in having this vehicle removed from the property. This will need to be done within one week or you will be issued a Ramsey County Court Citation for violation the City's Nuisance Code,the maximum fine for which is$700. Staff will reinspect your property on June.25, 1999 to verify your compliance. . If you have any questions about this letter, or would like to discuss this matter further with me, I would urge you to call me. I can be reached at 612-717-4022. Thank you. Sincerely, jib ,Akkelt James Ericson, Planning Associate cc: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director • • -„•� _ 11A— 1/'_... a Ah I r rAA n A Ann e' CITY OF CURDS Phone: (612) 717-4000 �,• DEW Fax: (612) 784-3462 ogress • Partners June 8, 1999 Michael Guy 7656 Greenfield Avenue Mounds View,MN 55112 RE: Truck Parked in Yard at 7656 Greenfield Dear Mr. Guy: • The City has recently become aware of a nuisance code violation at your property located at 7656 Greenfield Avenue. Specifically, it was observed that you, or someone on your property, are parking an older GMC truck in your yard, which is a violation of the City Code. The truck is in violation for a number of reasons. First, no vehicle is allowed to be parked in a yard. Second, commercial vehicles are not allowed to be parked in a residential district for more than two hours at a time. And third,the vehicle is unlicensed which is also a violation of the Code. In addition to the truck, it was also observed that there was a minivan parked in the yard and that the grass near the older truck was very tall, substantially exceeding the height limitations. Tall grass and weeds are considered a public nuisance affecting the health, safety and well-being of the community. I am aware that you are in the middle of an extensive expansion project on your home, and as such you probably have work vehicles going in and out of your property. For that reason, I can • understand why the minivan could be parked in the yard. If this is to occur again, however, please ensure that it is adjacent to the driveway as close as possible. As for the older truck, this vehicle will need to be removed from the property immediately as commercial vehicles are prohibited in residential districts. Last, please arrange to cut the grass so that it does not become any more of a nuisance than it already is. The City will appreciate your quick response and cooperation with regard to these issues. If you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to contact me at 612-717-4022. Thank you. Sincerely, James Ericson, Planning Associate IPRINTED WITNI 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 o. .�K RESOLUTION NO. 5360 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ABATEMENT OF A NUISANCE CODE VIOLATION LOCATED AT 7656 GREENFIELD AVENUE, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA, 55112 WHEREAS, according to Ramsey County Tax Assessment records, Michael Andrea Guy is listed as the fee-owner and taxpayer of 7656 Greenfield Avenue, legally described as follows: Lot 27, Block 3, Greenfield Plat 2 County of Ramsey WHEREAS, Michael Andrea Guy is the responsible party for maintaining a nuisance code violation in the form of an unlicensed commercial vehicle parked in the front yard of the above- described property; and, WHEREAS, in letters dated June 8, 1999 and June 16, 1999, the City of Mounds View notified Michael Andrea Guy that the commercial vehicle parked on his property constituted a public nuisance and required him to remove said public nuisance; and, WHEREAS, after failing to respond to the City's requests to remove the public nuisance from the property, staff issued Ramsey County Court Citation No. 99-101249 on June 28, 1999, and once again requested that the nuisance vehicle be removed; and WHEREAS, On July 21, 1999, after a reinspection revealed the nuisance vehicle was still present in Michael Andrea Guy's yard, staff issued a second Ramsey County Court Citation,No. 99-101250, and again requested that the nuisance vehicle be removed from the property; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the nuisance code violation present at 7656 Greenfield Avenue constitutes a public health and safety hazard, one which may invite plundering, vandalism, create a fire hazard, attract vermin and present physical dangers to the safety and well- being of children and other citizens; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a nuisance vehicle is in the nature of rubbish, litter and unsightly debris and is a blight upon the landscape and a detriment upon the environment; and, WHEREAS, the City has complied with the noticing provisions for a nuisance vehicle abatement proceeding as set forth in the Mounds View Municipal Code Section 607.08, Subdivision. 1; and 1 Michael Andrea Guy Abatement Resolution August 12, 1999 WHEREAS, the nuisance code violation remains on the property and it is proposed that the City abate the nuisance code violation pursuant to Mounds View Municipal Code Section 607.08. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Mounds View shall be authorized to abate the nuisance vehicle present at 7656 Greenfield Avenue by arranging to have it removed from the property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Michael Andrea Guy will be personally liable to the City for the cost of said abatement, including administrative costs, and if cost of said abatement is not paid within 30 days after the date of the bill and after an opportunity to be heard, the City shall certify the unpaid costs as special assessments against the Property pursuant to Section 607.08 Subdivision 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Adopted this 23 day of August, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST Chuck Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) 2 1O DATE: August 19, 1999 TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Terri Blattenbauer YMCA Program Executive RE: Showers/changing space at MVCC On August 16,the Parks and Recreation Commission had a special meeting to develop a plan(by request of the Mayor and Council), on how we would maintain a safe environment with this addition. I have attached 3 models of different facilities and how they manage this concept. The YMCA model represents 9 branch facilities. The following is a proposed plan to achieve this goal, and continue to provide quality programs, attract more users, and maintain a safe facility: • YMCA staff would assure that the locker room space was locked during special events, such as teen nights, family nights, etc. • Supervisors and lead staff would monitor periodically, and use a check off system for monitoring. • Signs would be posted, such as: "We ask you to help us provide a safe and clean environment. If you witness suspicious or behavior, please report to service desk. Thank you!" • Signs on the doors would be posted informing individuals that the areas are for showering and changing only, restrooms are located by front entrance. This would eliminated unnecessary traffic. • YMCA staff would use the windowed office areas as an advantage and monitoring tool as well. • During peak times and seasons, it will be a possibility that the Community Center is double staffed which would help in building circulation. One staff would remain behind the desk and the other as a floater. The Parks and Recreation Commission and YMCA staff are enthusiastic about the possibility of such an important addition to the facility. We have been informed that T.I.F. funds are available until the end of the year and are interested in pursuing this option. If you have questions regarding this, please don't hesitate to call me at(612)717-4042. MOUNDS VIEW Community Center/Parks&Recreation August, 1999 Showers/Changing space: The following is model information from two community facilities and the YMCA of Greater St. Paul (9 branch facilities). Brooklyn Center—Community Center • Supervisor on duty at all times. • Do not have designated locker room monitors. • Twice hourly, checks are made for safety, cleanliness, and possible trouble areas. • No towels are provided to public. • Pay lockers in lockerroom(decreases theft). • No food or drink are allowed in locker rooms. • Leads to pool area. New Brighton—Family Service Center • Weekend and evening building manager • Circulates building and monitors gym • Do not have designated locker room monitors. • No formal checks have evolved. • Do not like location of theirs (by entrance) • Use other staff for different gender LR checks. YMCA • Evening and weekend building supervisors • Periodic LR checks during each shift. • Do not have designated locker room monitors. • Circulates building during shift. • Occassional additional staff when needed. Item No. 10 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 8/23/99 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda;EDAB:EDA Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Financial Impact of Housing Inspector Replacement Options Date of Report: August 18, 1999 SUMMARY: At the last City Council work session staff discussed a number of options for filling the vacant housing inspector position and upgrading other positions. The City Council asked for additional information about the financial impact of the various options. In response to that request staff has prepared the attached spreadsheets. The options which are shown include the following: Option 1: Filling the position as is but adding a temporary summer position to assist with code enforcement. Option 2: Hiring a Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector and upgrading both the Planning Associate and Economic Development Coordinator positions. The Planning Associate position would no longer be responsible for code enforcement but would have additional responsibilities including GIS,website management, internet surveying, neighborhood liaison, and community visioning. The Economic Development Coordinator position would assume responsibility for housing program development and management. Option 3: Hiring a Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector and upgrading only the Planning Associate position.Under this option, in addition to the changes outlined in option 2 above,the Planning Associate position would also assume responsibility for housing program development and management. The first series of spreadsheets shows the change in the salary costs of the options. The costs shown take into account cost savings do to hiring a housing inspector at step 1 and also normal step increases which would occur during 1999 and 2000. The second spread sheet shows the impact of the various options on the 2000 budget and the changes from the approved 1999 budget. ACTION REQUESTED: Direction to staff on how to proceed to fill the vacant Housing Inspector position and to upgrade the Planning Associate and/or Economic Development Coordinator positions. e - , Rick Jopke Community Development Director 612-717-4021 • QUP r e= .IU y JUF.. f' f Q < Q k r Q Q t ,ir • , Ihi1 . I ;f (, -, ij71' ct € w n a'�� -� a $ hI . iI C7 LIZ E 1 C7 F - v f� U 1 FF111 w t ' : 1UiIi O jE- � p t k I a p • 3 t' O .'�Z a I I N - • U f ?,:,.mol W W ' %• l 2 b ' a' # r N o ( j �' Q x €,. €N O Q_' Q =N 45• cv .j '- 1-, Q N :M € .�` L # =' AO x to t i v3 LL �:., d to k�wz vl .j-- -- cn�.3 €- .. �x....,tm'_ _ e cZG • ' ZEL. O O Ea" g j`-'€ t o Fri � �� a € c Q-' a7 S �` p :,,-1 U LL--^s 5 £...._ U i.,..1...;.,;_-_ `-S�} - �t•-,,,.,,,`,1-, ^p+i i U U0 _3 c 3 f � F, t c 0 f0, a QE ; m z Z ' ami O �< Z U c• n • !O r d4 ii • j[ OZ to O, a U€ O�I ; U ° a F w a liH • •fUi i1— °'aU w =a •z = z ; ? v>G � w 0 co o z Q Z a m CC m Z C7 Z w '2 z m z ;p C9 a fl O j z 0 J } O Z 1ZZ fO5, :J } O z 9Z Z€ ' .� a —cc - (�I a ,dQ CC R. -C Z Z Z .Q H ,Z Z `' Q O o o w o ¢ o o g a 0 $€ o a o 'o g go a x f- �, � .�- m a z u� a -.,K:,w �-L.. v� a x f a a 0 O O 0 f1� m [-s ,x EA M Q. Z •- rn ^N c.4o ¢ n• g vel _ ¢ O U r— fix� (6 is W I- �c,' N F- 0) O CO m 0 F o 0 O Ce) N y f0 .n M F- fri N NLtWCD _! N ZLL > O1•P 2 o W o m f- Ur CCm m 0 = ¢ rn asF- W s- C mn m O 0 o m O ¢ • ." Ea 0 0 < '' --j N O- 2 f- ,' c N T_ 00W o � W k13 Zu_ > p �• � c O O 0 •"� F= 0CCc ,=o) Co o as 3. a el to= U c c •c W 3-m 0 t F- Z � M co 0 N m0 3nO v N C 0 0 ¢ . 'i M N L o F. I- 00W ' Op co \ N U CSW > pc :INN c� 0¢. 0 W O 0 ' "v _ m (� am SCO) tin O .+ W p ¢ Q O O N 0 O 0 v E 0 N V to co co 1- Z - c : Z. O Z . I--.. � , O C O m 2 _ o W m ¢ ;y •" cft O ou) L m N Z 0 v O � mWZ 0 -o Orn00 , 'n mco CoM a m ¢ 1:' -" V' my 0 ¢ �. 0 O - F— a I— 00 C 11 c M N- W C9 N • v F- Z ,Z CO •� d a 0 . O 0 -0 Ci) U 3 COcF- �n C Via' ` W 0 � a ~ aNi Orn _ O Z m CB 1 470 Pillsbury Center Kennedy 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone Graven (612) 337-9310 fax CHARTERED http://www.kennedy-graven.com SCOTT J.RIGGS Attorney at Law Direct Dial(612)337-9260 email:sriggs@kennedy-graven.com August 16, 1999 Mr. Charles S. Whiting City Clerk/Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55115 Re: 1. Chapter 910 Right-of-Way Management Ordinance 2. Chapter 911 Location, Relocation, Installation and Reinstallation of Facilities in the Right-of-Way 3. Chapter 902 Driveways Ordinance Dear Chuck: Enclosed please find the above-referenced three ordinances for review by the council at its August 23, 1999, city council meeting. The right-of-way ordinance and the undergrounding ordinance, Chapters 910 and 911 respectively, have been revised based on the council comments at the August 2, 1999 work session. I intend to explain the relevant revisions to both of these ordinances at the August 23, 1999, city council meeting. The ordinance pertaining to Chapter 902 and driveways is essentially the repealed ordinance previously discussed regarding this matter. The revised Chapter 902 now deals exclusively with driveways and no longer contains any provisions as to street openings and similar items. While the right-of-way ordinance, Chapter 910, does appear to be ready for adoption at this point in time, it may be appropriate to wait for final adoption of the right-of-way ordinance until the second reading and adoption of the undergrounding ordinance, Chapter 911, and the driveway ordinance, Chapter 902. In order to avoid any confusion in the City Code, it would be best to have the final adoption and effective dates of all three ordinances be consistent. As I noted in my voicemail message to you, I will be out of the office the week of August 16, 1999. Should you have any questions regarding these three ordinances, please leave a message SJR-167421 MU210-42 Mr. Chuck Whiting August 16, 1999 Page 2 for me on my voicemail or contact me on Monday, August 23, 1999. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED \SUH- p Scott J. Riggs Mounds View Assistant City Attorney SJR ms Enclosures JPD-152601 KG400-1 ORDINANCE NO.. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADMINISTER AND REGULATE THE LOCATION, RELOCATION, INSTALLATION AND REINSTALLATION OF FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THE COUNCIL OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 900 of the Mounds View Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of an entirely new Chapter 911,to read as follows: Chapter 911 Location, Relocation, Installation and Reinstallation of Facilities in the Right-of- Way SECTION 911.01. Purpose 911.02. Definitions 911.03. Undergrounding of Facilities 911.04. Undergrounding of New Facilities 911.05. Undergrounding of Permanent Replacement, Relocated or Reconstructed Facilities 911.06. Retirement of Overhead Facilities 911.07. Public Hearings 911.08. Public Hearing Issues 911.09. Undergrounding Plan 911.01. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public and is intended to foster (i) safe travel over the right-of-way, (ii)non-travel related safety around homes and buildings where overhead feeds are connected and(iii) orderly development in the city. Location and relocation, installation SJR-164129 MU210-14 and reinstallation of Facilities in the right-of-way must be made in accordance with this section. 911.02. Definitions. The terms used in this section have the meanings given them. Commission. "Commission" means the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Facility. "Facility" means tangible asset in the public right-of-way required to provide utility service. The term does not include Facilities to the extent the location and relocation of such Facilities are preempted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.45, governing utility facility placement in state trunk highways. Facility does not mean electric transmission lines, as distinguished from electric distribution lines. Public right-of-way. "Public right-of-way" has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162, subdivision 3. Right-of-way user. "Right-of-way user" means (1) a telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162, subdivision 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility, in the right-of-way, that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise or ordinance to use the public right-of-way. Utility service. "Utility service" means and includes: (1) service provided by a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.02, subdivisions 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of-way user, including the transporting of voice or data information; (3) services provided by a cable communications system as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.02, subdivision 3; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by a local government unit; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 308A; and (6) water, sewer, steam, cooling or heating services. 911.03. Undergrounding of Facilities. Facilities placed in the public right-of-way must be located, relocated and maintained underground pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section and in accordance with applicable construction standards. This section is intended to be enforced consistently with state and federal law regulating right-of-way users, specifically including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 161.45, 237.162, 237.163, 300.03, 222.37, 238.084 and 216B.36 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title 47, USC Section 253. 911.04. Undergrounding of New Facilities. A new Facility or a permanent extension of Facilities must be installed and maintained underground when supplied to: (a) a new installation of buildings, signs, streetlights or other structures; SJR-164129 MU210-14 (b) a new subdivision of land; or (c) a new development or industrial park containing new commercial or industrial buildings. The city council in its discretion may deviate from the requirements of this sections in situations where undergrounding is not technically or economically feasible. 911.05. Undergrounding of Permanent Replacement, Relocated or Reconstructed Facilities. A permanent replacement, relocation or reconstruction of a Facility of more than 300 feet must be located, and maintained underground, with due regard for seasonal working conditions. For purposes of this section, reconstruction means any substantial repair of or any improvement to existing Facilities. Undergrounding is required whether a replacement, relocation or reconstruction is initiated by the right-of-way user owning or operating the Facilities, or by the city in connection with (1) the present or future use by the city or other local government unit of the right-of-way for a public project, (2) the public health or safety, or (3) the safety and convenience of travel over the right-of-way. The city council in its discretion may deviate from the requirements of this sections in situations where undergrounding is not technically or economically feasible. 911.06. Retirement of Overhead Facilities. The city council may determine whether it is in the public interest that all Facilities within the city, or within certain districts designated by the city, be permanently placed and maintained underground by a date certain or target date, independently of undergrounding required pursuant to sections 911.04 and 911.05 of this Code. The decision to underground must be preceded by a public hearing, and must be proceeded by two weeks' published notice and not less than 30 days written notice to the utilities affected. At the hearing the council must consider items (1) — (4) in section 911.08 of this Code and make findings. Undergrounding may not take place until the city council has, after hearing and notice, adopted a plan containing items (1)—(6) of section 911.09 of this Code. 911.07. Public Hearings. A hearing must be open to the public and may be continued from time to time. At each hearing any person interested must be given an opportunity to be heard. The subject of the public hearings shall be the issue of whether Facilities in the right-of-way in the city, or located within a certain district, shall all be located underground by a date certain. Hearings are not necessary for the undergrounding required under sections 911.04 and 911.05 of the City Code. 911.08. Public Hearing Issues. The issues to be addressed at the public hearings include but are not limited to: (1) The costs and benefits to the public of requiring the undergrounding of all Facilities in the right-of-way. SJR-164129 MU210-14 (2) The feasibility and cost of undergrounding all Facilities by a date certain as determined by the city and the affected utilities. (3) The tariff requirements, procedure and rate design for recovery or intended recovery of incremental costs for undergrounding by the utilities from ratepayers within the city. (4) Alternative financing options available if the city deems it in the public interest to require undergrounding by a date certain and deems it appropriate to participate in the cost otherwise borne by the ratepayers. Upon completion of the hearing or hearings, the city council must make written findings on whether it is in the public interest to establish a plan under which all Facilities will be underground, either citywide or within districts designated by the city. 911.09. Undergrounding Plan. If the council finds that it is in the public interest to underground all or substantially all Facilities in the public right of way, the council must establish a plan for such undergrounding. The plan for undergrounding must include at least the following elements: (1) Timetable for the undergrounding. (2) Designation of districts for the undergrounding unless, undergrounding plan is citywide. (3) Exceptions to the undergrounding requirement and procedure for establishing such exceptions. (4) Procedures for the undergrounding process, including but not limited to coordination with city projects and provisions to ensure compliance with non-discrimination requirements under the law. (5) A financing plan for funding of the incremental costs if the city determines that it will finance some of the undergrounding costs, and a determination and verification of the claimed additional costs to underground incurred by the utility. (6) Penalties or other remedies for failure to comply with the undergrounding. SJR-164129 MU210-14 SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the city of Mounds View this day of , 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney SJR-164129 MU210-14 ORDINANCE NO. 6 4'O CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 900, CHAPTER 902 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DRIVEWAYS AND REPEALING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 902 RELATING TO STREET OPENINGS THE COUNCIL OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 900 of the Mounds View Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of the bold and double-underlined language and the deletion of the stricken through language in Chapter 902,to read as follows: CHAPTER 902 DRIVEWAYS1 SECTION: 902.01: Application of Provisions; Purpose 902.02: Definitions 902.03: Permit Requirements for Driveway Construction 902.01: Trenches; Backfilling; Fee:, 902.063: Driveway Construction 902.064: Curbing Standards 902.05: Violation of Provisions 902.01: APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS; PURPOSE: This Chapter applies to all streets and driveways within the Municipality and is declared to be necessary and essential because of the growth and expansion of Mounds View. (1988 Code §44.01) shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: 1 See subdivision 604.03(3)j of this Code for nuisance excavations; see subdivision 906.03(2) of this Title for water system excavations;see subdivision 907.04(3)f of this Code for sewer system excavations. SJR-167412 MU210-42 together with appurtenances, including buried pipe cable, conduit, wire, valves, cable TV lines. Subd. 2. PUBLIC UTILITIES: All water mains, sanitary sewers and storm sewers, together with appurtenances, including house service connections, valves,manholes, catch basins and outlets. _ . - '. _ '.- - e • - • _ • . - . . . - . — . •• .. -- •:: .. _44 902.0x2: PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Subd. 1. Trenches and Excavations: a. Permit Required: No person shall undertake a street opening in any Municipal provide the required information and shall, in addition, conform with the following regulations. (1988 Code §11.01) b. Purpose of Permit: Street opening permits shall be granted only for the installation and connection to public or private utilitie - . • . •- -- - - c. Issuance of Permit: The permit shall be issued by the Municipal Clerk Code §14.01) Subd. 2. Driveway Construction: No person shall construct a driveway without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the provisions set forth in Chapter 1006 of this Code. (1988 Code §44.05) 902.04: TRENCHES; BACKFILLING; FEES: Subd. 1. Permanent Type Roadbed Surface: All trenches in streets which arc dug for the .• - _ • .. ., - -.- - - -- -- . .. and compacted with Class 5 base material u: . . •_ • : . . _ •--, . - -- blacktop wearing surface shall be replaced. On streets having a permanent typo roadbed surface, an estimate of costs shall be co :. -- . •- , ' • • •••• , • -: • SJR-167412 MU210-42 � . • •. •ter• .• • • ••• • • � •. • . A• -• . . .. The fee for this street opening shall be ten dollars ($10.00). (1988 Code §11.01) 902.053: DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Subd. 1. General Construction: The following procedure and specifications shall be required for all gravel, concrete or asphalt driveway construction from streets to private garages: a. Excavation: The driveway shall be excavated to remove all black dirt from the area to be surfaced. b. Drainage Provisions: The driveway shall be constructed so as to provide drainage from the garage to the street unless a variance is granted by the Building Inspector2. Subd. 2. Gravel Construction: After initial excavation, the driveway construction shall consist of a minimum of four inches (4") of Class 2 crushed rock (3/4" down) compacted in place. Subd. 3. Concrete Construction: a. After initial excavation, the driveway shall be backfilled with Class 4 base material, compacted in place, to an elevation four inches (4") below the finished surface grade of the driveway. b. The driveway construction shall consist of a minimum of four inches (4") of three thousand five hundred(3,500)pound mix,four inch(4") slump with air. Subd. 4. Asphalt Construction: a. After initial excavation, the driveway shall be backfilled with Class 4 base material, compacted in place, to an elevation four inches (4") below the finished surface grade of the driveway. b. The driveway construction shall consist of a minimum of two inches (2") (compacted thickness), Class 5 base material and a minimum of two inches (2") 2 See Chapter 1302 of this Code for storm water management requirements. SJR-167412 MU210-42 (compacted thickness) bituminous wearing course conforming to Minnesota Highway Department specifications 2331. c. The bituminous wearing course material shall not be delivered to the job site until the Class 5 base material has been placed compacted. (1988 Code §44.05) 902.064: CURBING STANDARDS: Curbing shall be required for all driveways and parking lots according to the following standards and specifications: Single-family residential-none Two-family residential-none Three(3)to six (6)unit residential-6" x 18" straight curb Seven plus (7+) unit residential, commercial and industrial -B 6-18 curb and gutter. (1988 Code §44.06) 903.075: VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS: Any person who shall do or commit any act that is forbidden by the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (1988 Code §44.07) SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the city of Mounds View this day of , 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney SJR-167412 MU210-42 ORDINANCE NO. 4L.36 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADMINISTER AND REGULATE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE AND REGULATION OF RIGHT-OF- WAY PERMITS THE COUNCIL OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 900 of the Mounds View Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of an entirely new Chapter 910,to read as follows: Chapter 910 Right-of-Way Management SECTION 910.01. Findings, Purpose and Intent 910.02. Election to Manage the Public Rights-of-Way 910.03. Definitions 910.04. Administration 910.05. Registration and Right-of-Way Occupancy 910.06. Registration Information 910.07. Reporting Obligations 910.08. Permit Requirement 910.09. Permit Applications 910.10. Issuance of Permit; Conditions 910.11. Permit Fees 910.12. Right-of-Way Patching and Restoration 910.13. Joint Applications 910.14. Supplementary Applications 910.15. Other Obligations 910.16. Denial of Permit 910.17. Installation Requirements 910.18. Inspection 910.19. Work Done Without a Permit 910.20. Supplementary Notification 910.21. Revocation of Permits SJR-163902 MU210-14 1 910.22. Mapping Data 910.23. Location of Facilities 910.24. Relocation of Facilities 910.25. Pre-Excavation Facilities Location 910.26. Damage to Other Facilities 910.27. Right-of-Way Vacation 910.28. Indemnification and Liability 910.29. Abandoned and Unusable Facilities 910.30. Appeal 910.31. Reservation of Regulatory and Police Powers 910.32. Severability 910.01: FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND INTENT: The City hereby enacts this new Chapter of this Code relating to right-of-way permits and administration and to provide for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and to ensure the integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights-of-way. This Chapter imposes reasonable regulation on the placement and maintenance of facilities and equipment currently within its rights- of-way or to be placed therein. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. This chapter shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the "Act") and the other laws governing applicable rights of the city and users of the right-of-way. This chapter shall also be interpreted consistently with Minnesota Rules Part 7819.0050—7819.9950 where possible. To the extent any provision of this chapter cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. 910.02: ELECTION TO MANAGE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: In accordance with the authority granted to the city under state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the city hereby elects pursuant to this chapter to manage rights-of-ways within the jurisdiction. 910.03: DEFINITIONS: The following definitions apply in this Chapter of this Code. References hereafter to "sections" are unless otherwise specified references to sections in this Chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms whether or not capitalized. "Abandoned facility" means a facility no longer in service or physically disconnected from a portion of the operating facility, or from any other facility, that is in use or still carries service. A facility is not abandoned unless declared so by the right-of-way user. "Applicant" means any Person requesting permission to Excavate or obstruct a Right-of-Way. SJR-163902 MU210-14 2 "City" means the City of Mounds View,Minnesota. For purposes of section 910.27, City means its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. "Commission" means the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. "Congested right-of-way" means a crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right-of-way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, section 216D.04. subdivision 3, over a continuous length in excess of 500 feet. "Construction Performance Bond" means any of the following forms of security provided at permittee's option: A. Individual project bond; B. Cash deposit; C. Security of a form listed or approved under Minn. Stat. § 15.73 subd. 3; D. Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the LGU E. Self-insurance, in a form acceptable to the LGU F. A blanket bond for projects within the city, or other form of construction bond, for a time specified and in a form acceptable to the city. "Degradation"means a decrease in the useful life of the Right-of-Way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the Right-of-Way,resulting in the need to reconstruct such Right-of-Way earlier than would be required if the excavation or disturbance did not occur. "Degradation Cost" subject to Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 means the cost to achieve a level of restoration as determined by the City at the time the permit is issued,not to exceed the maximum Restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. "Degradation Fee" means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the city to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the right- of-way caused by the excavation, and which equals the degradation costs. "Department" means the department of public works of the city. "Department inspector"means any person authorized by the director to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this chapter. SJR-163902 MU210-14 3 "Director"means the director of the department of public works of the city, or her or his designee. "Delay Penalty" is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right- of-way excavation, obstruction,patching, or restoration as requested by permit. "Emergency"means a condition that(1)poses a danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or(2) requires immediate repair or replacement of facilities in order to restore service to a customer. "Equipment"means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right-of-way. "Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right-of-way. "Excavation Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may excavate in a right-of-way. An excavation permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit. "Excavation Permit Fee" means money paid to the city by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in Section 910.11. "Facility or Facilities" means any tangible asset in the right-of-way required to provide utility service. "Five-year project plan" shows projects adopted by the local government unit for construction within the next five years. "High density corridor" means a designated portion of the public right-of-way within which telecommunications right-of-way users having multiple and competing facilities may be required to build and install facilities in a common conduit system or other common structure. "Hole"means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement. "Local government unit" means the city. "Local Representative"means a local person or persons, or designee of such person or persons, authorized by a registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this chapter. "Management Costs" means the actual costs the City incurs in managing its rights- of-way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering Applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right-of-way permit applications; SJR-163902 MU210-14 4 inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting,protecting, or moving user facilities during right-of-way work; detemiining the adequacy of right- of-way restoration;restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right-of-way permits. Management costs do not include payment by a telecommunications right-of-way user for the use of the right-of-way, the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 1997, Chapter 123; Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.162 or 237.163 or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the city fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to Section 910.29 of this chapter. "Obstruct" means to place any tangible object in a right-of-way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the right-of-way. "Obstruction Permit"means the permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may obstruct a right-of-way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right-of-way, for the duration specified therein. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the city by a permittee to cover the costs as provided in Section 910.11. "Patch or Patching" means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A patch consists of(1)the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A patch is considered full restoration only when the pavement is included in the city's five-year project plan. "Pavement" means any type of improved surface that is within the public right-of- way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with bituminous, concrete, aggregate, or gravel. "Permit" has the meaning given "right-of-way permit" in Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162. "Permittee" means any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct a right-of- way has been granted by the city under this chapter. "Person" means an individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized, whether public or private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for profit or nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate, or political. `Probation"means the status of a person that has not complied with the conditions of this Chapter. SJR-163902 MU210-14 5 "Probationary Period" means one year from the date that a person has been notified in writing that they have been put on probation. "Public Right-of-Way" means the area on,below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway,bicycle lane and public sidewalk in which the city has an interest, including other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easements of the city. A right-of-way does not include the airwaves above a right- of-way with regard to cellular or other non-wire telecommunications or broadcast service. "Registrant"means any person who (1) has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in any right-of-way, or(2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of-way or place its facilities or equipment in the right-of- way. "Restore or Restoration" means the process by which an excavated right-of-way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. "Restoration Cost"means the amount of money paid to the city by a permittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 of PUC rules. "Right-of-Way Permit" means either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this chapter. "Right-of-way user"means (1) a telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162, subdivision 4; or(2) a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right-of-way. "Service or Utility Service" includes (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216B.02, subds. 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of-way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications systems as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 238; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the city; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 308A; and(6) water, sewer, steam, cooling or heating services. "Supplementary Application" means an application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right-of-way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. "Temporary surface"means the compaction of subbase and aggregateate base and replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement only to the edges of the excavation. SJR-163902 MU210-14 6 It is temporary in nature except when the replacement is of pavement included in the local government unit's two-year plan, in which case it is considered full restoration. "Trench" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length equal to or greater than the width of the pavement. "Telecommunication Rights-of-Way User" means a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way, or seeking to own or control a facility in the right-of- way, that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this chapter, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.02, a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 308A, are not telecommunications right-of-way users for purposes of this Chapter. "Two year project plan" shows projects adopted by the local government unit for construction within the next two years. 910.04: ADMINISTRATION: The Director is the principal City official responsible for the administration of the Rights-of-Way, Right-of-Way Permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The Director may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. 910.05: REGISTRATION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OCCUPANCY: Subd. 1. Registration: Each Person who occupies, uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the Right-of-Way or place any Equipment or Facilities in or on the Right-of-Way, including Persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the Director. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. Subd. 2. Registration Prior to Work: No Person may construct, install, repair,remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any Facilities or any part thereof in any Right-of-Way without first being registered with the Director. Subd. 3. Exceptions: Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a City ordinance permitting Persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the Right-of-Way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the Right-of-Way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits or satisfy any other requirements for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this Chapter. However, nothing herein relieves a Person SJR-163902 MU210-14 7 from complying with the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216D, One Call Excavation Notice System. 910.06: REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Subd. 1. Information Required: The information provided to the Director at the time of registration shall include,but not be limited to: (a) Each Registrant's name, One Call Excavation Notice System registration certificate number, address and e-mail address if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. (b)The name, address and e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a Local Representative. The Local Representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the Local Representative in an Emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. (c) A certificate of insurance or self-insurance: (1) Verifying that an insurance policy has been issued to the Registrant by an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self insurance acceptable to the Director; (2)Verifying that the Registrant is insured against claims for Personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the Right-of-Way by the Registrant, its officers, agents, employees and Permittees, and(ii)placement and use of Facilities and Equipment in the Right-of-Way by the Registrant, its officers, agents, employees and Permittees, including,but not limited to,protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground Facilities and collapse of property; (3)Either naming the City as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages or otherwise providing evidence satisfactory to the Director that the city is fully covered and will be defended through Registrant's insurance for all actions included in Minnesota Rule subpart 7819.1250; (4)Requiring that the Director be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; (5)Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage established by the Director in amounts sufficient to protect the City and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this Chapter. SJR-163902 MU210-14 8 (d) The City may require a copy of the actual insurance policies if necessary to ensure the Director that the policy provides adequate third party claim coverage and city indemnity and defense coverage for all actions included in the indemnity required by Minnesota Rule subpart 7819.1250. (e) Such evidence as the Director may require that the person is authorized to do business in Minnesota. Subd. 2. Notice of Changes: The Registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times by providing to the Director information as to changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on which the Registrant has knowledge of any change. 910.07: REPORTING OBLIGATIONS: Subd. 1. Operations: Each Registrant shall, at the time of registration and by December 1 of each year,file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground Facilities with the Director. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the Director and shall contain the information determined by the Director to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of excavations and Obstructions of Rights-of-Way. The plan shall include,but not be limited to, the following information: (a) The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all Projects to be commenced during the next calendar year(in this section, a"Next-year Project"); and (b)To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending dates for all Projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this section, a"Five-year Project"). The term "project" in this section shall include both Next-year Projects and Five-year Projects. By January 1 of each year the Director will have available for inspection in the Director's office a composite list of all Projects of which the Director has been informed of the annual plans. All Registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter,by February 1, each Registrant may change any Project in its list of Next-year Projects, and must notify the Director and all other Registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Registrant may at any time join in a Next-year Project of another Registrant listed by the other Registrant. SJR-163902 MU210-14 9 Subd. 2. Additional Next-year Projects: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director will not deny an application for a Right-of-Way Permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the City if the Registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. 910.08: PERMIT REQUIREMENT: Subd. 1. Permit Required: Except as otherwise provided in this Code, no Person may Obstruct or Excavate any Right-of-Way without first having obtained the appropriate Right-of- Way Permit from the Director to do so. (a)Excavation Permit: An Excavation Permit is required by a Registrant to Excavate that part of the Right-of-Way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the Right-of-Way by placing Facilities described therein,to the extent and for the duration specified therein. (b) Obstruction Permit: An Obstruction Permit is required by a Registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of Right-of-Way by placing Equipment described therein on the Right-of-Way,to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An Obstruction Permit is not required if a Person already possesses a valid Excavation Penilit for the same project. Subd. 2. Permit Extensions: No Person may Excavate or Obstruct the Right-of-Way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless such Person (i) makes a Supplementary Application for another Right-of-Way Permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. Subd. 3. Delay Penalty: In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1000 subp. 3 and notwithstanding subd. 2 of this section,the City shall establish and impose a Delay Penalty for unreasonable delays in Right-of-Way excavation, Obstruction, Patching, or Restoration. The Delay Penalty shall be established from time to time by City Council resolution. Subd. 4. Permit Display: Permits issued under this Chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the Director. 910.09: PERMIT APPLICATIONS: Application for a permit is made to the Director. Permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with the requirements of the following provisions: (a)Registration with the Director pursuant to this Chapter; (b) Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed Facilities. SJR-163902 MU210-14 10 (c) Payment of money due the City for (1)permit fees, estimated Restoration Costs and other Management Costs, (2)prior Obstructions or Excavations; (3) any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the City because of Applicant's prior excavations or Obstructions of the rights-of-way or any Emergency actions taken by the City; (4) franchise fees or other charges, if applicable. (d) Posting an additional or larger construction performance bond for additional facilities when applicant requests an excavation permit to install additional facilities and the director deems the existing construction performance bond inadequate under applicable standards. 910.10: ISSUANCE OF PERMIT; CONDITIONS: Subd. 1. Permit Issuance: If the Applicant has satisfied the requirements of this Chapter,the Director shall issue a permit. Subd. 2. Conditions: The Director may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the Applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of-Way and its current use. 910.11: PERMIT FEES: Subd. 1. Fee Schedule and Fee Allocation: The city's permit fee schedule shall be available to the public and established in advance. The permit fees shall be designed to recover the City's actual costs incurred in managing the right-of-way and shall be based on an allocation among all users of the right-of-way, including the city. Subd. 2. Excavation Permit Fee: The city shall establish an Excavation Pe1111it Fee in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: (a) the City Management Costs; (b) Degradation Costs, if applicable. Subd. 3. Obstruction Permit Fee: The city shall establish the Obstruction Permit Fee which shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the City Management Costs. SJR-163902 MU210-14 11 Subd. 4. Payment of Permit Fees: No Excavation Permit or Obstruction Permit shall be issued without payment of Excavation or Obstruction Permit Fees. The City may allow Applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. Subd. 5. Non refundable: Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the Director has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 910.21 are not refundable. Subd. 6. Application to franchises: Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise, Management Costs may be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right-of-way user in the franchise. 910.12: RIGHT-OF-WAY PATCHING AND RESTORATION: Subd. 1. Timing: The work to be done under the Excavation Permit, and the Patching and Restoration of the Right-of-Way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the Permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 910.15. Subd. 2. Patch and Restoration: Permittee shall Patch its own work. The City may choose either to have the Permittee restore the Right-of-Way or to Restore the Right-of-Way itself. (a) City Restoration: If the City restores the Right-of-Way, Permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty(30) days of billing. If, following such Restoration,the pavement settles due to Permittee's improper backfilling, the Permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with having to correct the defective work. (b) Permittee Restoration: If the Permittee Restores the Right-of-Way itself, it shall at the time of application for an Excavation Permit post a Construction Performance Bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules 7819.3000. (c)Degradation Fee in Lieu of Restoration: In lieu of right-of-way restoration, a right-of- way user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However, the right-of-way user shall remain responsible for patching and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. Subd. 3. Standards: The Permittee shall perform Patching and Restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the Director and shall comply with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100. The Director shall have the authority to prescribe the manner and extent of the Restoration, and may do so in written procedures of general application or on a case-by-case basis. Subd. 4. Duty to Correct Defects: The Permittee shall correct defects in patching, or restoration performed by permittee or its agents. Permittee shall upon notification from the Director, correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the SJR-163902 MU210-14 12 Director. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the Director,not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 910.15. Subd. 5. Failure to Restore: If the Permittee fails to Restore the Right-of-Way in the manner and to the condition required by the Director, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all Restoration required by the Director, the Director at its option may do such work. In that event the Permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty(30) days of billing,the cost of Restoring the Right-of-Way. If Permittee fails to pay as required, the City may exercise its rights under the Construction Performance Bond. 910.13: JOINT APPLICATIONS: Subd. 1. Joint Application: Registrants may jointly apply for permits to Excavate or Obstruct the Right-of-Way at the same place and time. for the same Obstruction or Subd. 2. Shared Fees: Registrants who apply forpermits excavation, which the Director does not perform, may share in the payment of the Obstruction or Excavation Permit Fee. In order to obtain a joint permit, registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the same on their applications Subd. 3. With City Projects: Registrants who join in a scheduled Obstruction or excavation performed by the Director,whether or not it is a joint application by two or more Registrants or a single application, are not required to pay the Excavation or Obstruction and Degradation portions of the permit fee, but a permit would still be required. 910.14: SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATIONS: Subd. 1. Limitation on Area: A Right-of-Way Permit is valid only for the area of the Right-of- Way specified in the permit. No Permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any Permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be Obstructed or Excavated must before working in that greater area(i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii)be granted a new permit or permit extension. Subd. 2. Limitation on dates: A Right-of-Way Permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No Permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a Permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This Supplementary Application must be submitted before the permit end date. 910.15: OTHER OBLIGATIONS: SJR-163902 MU210-14 13 Subd. 1. Compliance With Other Laws: Obtaining a Right-of-Way Permit does not relieve Permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the City or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A Permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including Minn. Stat. § 216D.01-.09 (One Call Excavation Notice System). A Permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the Right-of-Way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. Subd. 2. Prohibited Work: Except in an Emergency, or with the approval of the Director, no Right-of-Way Obstruction or excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. Subd. 3. Interference with Right-of-Way: A Permittee shall not so Obstruct a Right-of-Way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the Right-of-Way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with City parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. 910.16: DENIAL OF PERMIT: The Director may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this Chapter or if the Director determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of- Way and its current use. 910.17: INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS: The excavation,backfilling,Patching and Restoration, and all other work performed in the Right-of-Way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minnesota Statutes, Sections. 237.162 and 237.163. 910.18: INSPECTION: Subd. 1. Notice of Completion: When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the Permittee shall furnish a Completion Certificate in accordance Minnesota Rules 7819.1300. Subd. 2. Site Inspection: Permittee shall make the work-site available to the Director and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. Subd 3. Authority of Director: (a) At the time of inspection, the Director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or well-being of the public. SJR-163902 MU210-14 14 (b) The Director may issue an order to the Permittee for any work which does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the Permittee shall present proof to the Director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the Director may revoke the permit pursuant to Section 910.21. 910.19: WORK DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT: Subd. 1. Emergency Situations: Each Registrant shall immediately notify the Director of any event regarding its Facilities, which it considers to be an Emergency. The Registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the Emergency. Within two business days after the occurrence of the Emergency the Registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this Chapter for the actions it took in response to the Emergency. If the Director becomes aware of an Emergency regarding a Registrant's Facilities, the Director will attempt to contact the Local Representative of each Registrant affected, or potentially affected, by the Emergency, direct them to take whatever action may be necessary to respond to the Emergency, or otherwise take whatever action the Director deems necessary to respond to the Emergency if Registrant does not timely respond. The Cost shall be borne by the Registrant whose Facilities occasioned the Emergency. Subd. 2. Non-Emergency Situations: Except in an Emergency, any Person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, Obstructs or Excavates a Right-of-Way must subsequently obtain a permit, and as a penalty pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by the Legislative Code, deposit with the Director the fees necessary to correct any damage to the Right-of-Way and comply with all of the requirements of this Chapter. 910.20: SUPPLEMENTARY NOTIFICATION: If the Obstruction or Excavation of the Right-of-Way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, Permittee shall notify the Director of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. 910.21: REVOCATION OF PERMITS: Subd. 1. Substantial Breach: The City reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any Right-of-Way Permit, without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by Permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (a) The violation of any material provision of the Right-of-Way Permit; SJR-163902 MU210-14 15 (b) An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the Right-of-Way Permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the City or its citizens; (c) Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a Right-of-Way Permit; (d) The failure to complete the work in a timely manner; unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the Permittee's control; or (e) The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to Section 910.18. Subd. 2. Written Notice of Breach: If the Director determines that the Permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule,regulation or any condition of the permit the Director shall make a written demand upon the Permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the Director, at his or her discretion, to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. Subd. 3. Response to Notice of Breach: Within twenty-four(24) hours of receiving notification of the breach, Permittee shall provide the Director with a plan, acceptable to the Director, that will cure the breach. Permittee's failure to so contact the Director, or the Peimittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or Permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Further, Permittee's failure to so contact the Director, or the Permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or Permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall automatically place the Permittee on Probation for one (1)year. Subd. 4. Cause for Probation: From time to time, the Director may establish a list of conditions of the permit, which if breached will automatically place the Permittee on Probation for one full year, such as,but not limited to, working out of the allotted time period or working on Right-of-Way grossly outside of the permit authorization. Subd. 5. Automatic Revocation: If a Permittee, while on Probation, commits a breach as outlined above, Permittee's permit will automatically be revoked and Permittee will not be allowed further permits for one year, except for Emergency repairs. Subd. 6. Reimbursement of City Costs: If a permit is revoked,the permittee shall also reimburse the City for the City's reasonable costs, including restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. 910.22: MAPPING DATA: SJR-163902 MU210-14 16 Subd. 1. Information Required: Each Registrant and Permittee shall provide Mapping information required by the Director in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. 910.23: LOCATION AND RELOCATION OF FACILITIES: Subd. 1. Unless otherwise agreed in a franchise between the applicable right-of-way user and the City, Facilities in the right-of-way must be located or relocated and maintained underground in accordance with this section, Minnesota Rule subpart 7819.3100 and Chapter 911 of this Code. Subd. 2. Corridors: The Director may assign specific corridors within the Right-of-Way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of Facilities that is or, pursuant to current technology,the Director expects will someday be located within the Right-of-Way. All excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the Director involving the installation or replacement of Facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the Facilities at issue. Any relocation of Facilities required by the Director shall be carried out in accordance with Minnesota Rule subpart 7819.3100. Subd. 3. Limitation of Space: To protect health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of-Way and its current use, the Director shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional Facilities within the Right-of-Way. In making such decisions, the Director shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the Right-of-Way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest,the public's needs for the particular Utility Service, the condition of the Right-of-Way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing Facilities in the Right-of-Way, and future City plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. 910.24: PRE-EXCAVATION FACILITY AND FACILITIES LOCATION: Registrant shall comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System"). Any Registrant whose Facilities are less than twenty(20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its Facilities and the best procedure for excavation. 910.25: DAMAGE TO OTHER FACILITIES: When the Director does work in the Right-of-Way and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a Registrant's Facilities to protect it,the Director shall notify the Local Representative as early as is reasonably possible. The costs associated therewith will be billed to that Registrant and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any Facilities in the Right-of-Way, which it or its Facilities damages. Each Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the Facilities of another Registrant caused during the City's response to an Emergency occasioned by that Registrant's Facilities. SJR-163902 MU210-14 17 910.26: RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION: If the City vacates a Right-of-Way, which contains the Facilities of a Registrant, the registrant's rights in the vacated right-of-way are governed by Minnesota Rule 7819.3200. 910.27: INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY: By registering with the Director, or by accepting a permit under this Chapter, a Registrant or Permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. 910.28: ABANDONED AND UNUSABLE FACILITIES: Subd. 1. Discontinued Operations: A Registrant who has determined to discontinue all or a portion of its operations in the City must provide information satisfactory to the Director that the Registrant's obligations for its Facilities in the Right-of-Way under this Chapter have been lawfully assumed by another Registrant. Subd. 2. Removal: Any Registrant who has abandoned Facilities in any Right-of-Way shall remove it from that Right-of-Way if required in conjunction with other right-of-way repair, excavation, or construction, unless this requirement is waived by the Director. 910.29: APPEAL: A Right-of-Way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had permit revoked; or(4)believes that the fees imposed are invalid, may have the denial,revocation, or fee imposition reviewed,upon written request,by the City Council. The City Council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A decision by the City Council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. 910.30: RESERVATION OF REGULATORY AND POLICE POWERS: A Permittee's or Registrant's rights are subject to the regulatory and police powers of the City to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. 910.31: SEVERABILITY: If any portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Nothing in this Chapter precludes the City from requiring a franchise agreement with the Applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. SJR-163902 MU210-14 18 SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the city of Mounds View this day of , 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney SJR-163902 MU210-14 19 I