HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1999/09/27 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 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 September 13, 1999 Minutes
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
6. REPORTS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims.
B. Restaurant License Approval.
C. Authorize Staff to Retain SEH to Analyze Stormwater Handling Options for
Mermaid Project.
D. Authorize Modification of Paragraph 7.5 of the Purchase and Redevelopment
Agreement with Vista Construction Regarding 6991 Pleasant View Drive.
E. Set Date (October 21, 1999) for joint EDC/EDA Public Informational Meeting
Regarding Tax Increment Financing.
F. Resolution#5369, a Resolution Adopting Cable Television Policies for City
Meetings.
G. Resolution#5374, a Resolution to Continue Cable Televising of City Meetings.
H. Contractor Licenses for Approval.
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 and Consideration of Resolution 5366, a Resolution
Contemplating the Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Garage
at 8011 Sunnyside Road.
C:\JOANB\AGENDAS\CC\9-27-99.CC
Page Two
City Council Agenda
September 27, 1999
7:10 B. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5373, a Resolution Certifying
Delinquent Accounts to the Associated Property's Property Taxes.
C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 639, an Ordinance Amending
Chapters 1109 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Conditional Uses
within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts.
1. Roll Call/Vote: Thomason, Quick,Marty, Stigney, Coughlin
D. Resolution No. 5375 Approving the 2000 SCORE Recycling Grant Request to
Ramsey County.
E. Closed Session: Regarding Airport Litigation, City Attorney
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 4, 1999 - 6:00 P.M.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 11, 1999 - 7:00 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT
C:\JOANB\AGENDAS\CC\9-13-99.CC
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
September 13, 1999
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:02 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Stigney and Thomason.
NOT PRESENT: Quick.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, September 13, 1999, City Council Agenda
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
City Administrator Whiting requested the addition of 10 A-1, Second Reading of Ordinance 630,
which had been inadvertently omitted from the present agenda.
City Administrator Whiting explained Item 0, the Authorization of an Interfund Advance from
the Special Projects Fund to the golf course, had been discussed with the City's Bond Attorney,
and suggested the ensuing information be brought forward to the Council, prior to Council
Business.
Mayor Coughlin requested Item 0 be removed from the present agenda, and discussed during the
consideration of Reports.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Accept the September 13 1999 City Council
Agenda as Presented, with the Addition of Item 10 A-1, Second Reading of Ordinance 630, the
Withdrawal of Item 0, and Waiving the Readings of All Resolutions and Ordinances Presently
Under Consideration, Unless Otherwise Specified By the Council.
Ayes—(4?) Nays - 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Monday,August 23, 1999, City Council Minutes
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 5, end of second paragraph, to include the
sentence "Mayor Coughlin noted that it was the consensus of the Council to pursue the
scheduling of a discussion group for possible Highway 10 redevelopment options."
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mayor Coughlin requested all references to Bill Varner on Pages 10 through 12, be corrected to
indicate the spelling of the name "Bill Werner."
Mayor Coughlin requested the vote tally on Page 25 be corrected to indicate "Ayes —3, Nays —
0."
Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 5, first paragraph, first sentence, to
indicate "...incorporating the City of Mounds View in the (651) area code..."
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To accept the August 23, 1999 City Council minutes as
corrected.
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Abstain— 1 (Thomason) Motion carried.
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
6. REPORTS
Council Member Marty reported the Park and Recreation Commission had requested he bring
before the Council a request to approach Ramsey County to examine relocating the compost site,
from Ardan Park to the golf course. He stated Golf Course Superintendent John
Hammerschmidt had suggested this previously, in light of the amount of the compost utilized by
the golf course. He stated this would provide that the compost site was accessible to the golf
course, and there is sufficient room for this. He noted they had also discussed the reclamation of
Ardan Park as a park area. He explained they did not feel the residents in the area would be
opposed to the removal of the brush and compost from the area. He commented that Ramsey
County would have the final word on this matter.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if Council Member Marty would request this matter be discussed at an
upcoming Work Session. Council Member Marty stated he would.
Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to add this item to the agenda for
discussion at an upcoming Work Session.
Council Member Marty noted discussion regarding retro-fitting the park bleachers at City Hall
and Greenfield Park would be considered during the next meeting of the Park and Recreation
Commission, in order to bring these into compliance with the new State Statutes.
Council Member Marty stated the Park and Recreation Commission was presently obtaining bids
for the volleyball court lighting fixtures. He informed the Council that the pathway along a
portion of Silver Lake Road and Silver View Pond had been completed, and they had done a
very good job. He commented he and his children had visited the site the prior evening, and there
were many visitors present.
Council Member Marty stated the project of upgrading the drinking fountains in some of the
parks had been approved to proceed, and the two half-court basketball courts at the Community
Center have been completed, and are open for public use.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999-
Regular Meeting Page 3
Council Member Marty reported he had attended a meeting with Northwest Youth and Family
Services, however, he had not received further information concerning their possible expansion
into Anoka County. He noted Director Kay Andrews had indicated she would approach Anoka
County in this regard, and further information should be available by their next monthly meeting.
Council Member Marty stated they had requested that the cities they represent post their facility,
which is available to the community, on the City's web page, to provide them with additional
exposure.
Mayor Coughlin stated he believed Planning Associate Ericson would be pleased to do this.
Mayor Coughlin reported he had attended a meeting with the I-35W Corridor Coalition, which is
a collective of the cities that surround the north section of I-35W who are attempting to
coordinate their efforts for future redevelopment. He stated they had discussed a variety of
issues, including the upcoming meeting on October 6, at 5:30 p.m., during which they would
discuss the redevelopment plans and potential presented. He requested the Council Members
seriously consider attending this meeting, adding that the Metropolitan Council would be
present, and, to his knowledge, this body has never before met in an official meeting outside of
their chambers.
Mayor Coughlin stated the I-35W Corridor Coalition has caught the attention of the Metropolitan
Council through a variety of computer information and the global information system. He
commented regarding a compact disk containing satellite views and zoning, now available on the
computer, which information had been culled from the collective work of the various cities
involved in the I-35W Corridor Coalition.
Mayor Coughlin commented that the Metropolitan Council was looking for an opportunity to
significantly fund some of the redevelopment efforts in the Metropolitan community, and the I-
35W Corridor Coalition stands out as one of organizations that could be substantially funded
through their sizable budget. He stated this would be a good opportunity to attend on behalf of
the City of Mounds View, and show that they do stand in support of this organization.
Mayor Coughlin stated that a regional meeting with the League of Minnesota Cities would be
held on Thursday in the New Brighton Family Service Center. He stated he was planning to
attend this meeting, and encouraged the Council Members to attend as well. He remarked that
this was a good way to touch base with some of the people who represent the City with this
body. He noted that Representative Haake would be present, and would likely be one of the
featured speakers.
Council Member Thomason stated she had no report.
Council Member Stigney reported he had not been able to attend the Planning Commission
meeting on September 1, as he had was out of town, however, he had reviewed the meeting on
videotape. He noted consideration of a variance request for a 44-foot driveway at 8359 Red Oak
Drive. He stated the majority of the evening was the discussion of the location of a screen fence
at the Theater property, and some question as to whether or not it was required at the site, in light
of the office building.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 4
Council Member Stigney reported he had attended the Charter Commission meeting, during
which they considered their response to the request of the City Council regarding some changes
to the Charter. He stated the changes were reviewed in some detail, and a response had been
foliiiulated. He noted some questions had been raised regarding what was being requested, and
this matter would be coming forward to the Council.
Council Member Stigney noted the newsletter "Council Directions Provided by the Metropolitan
Council," which indicated the Metropolitan Council had reduced the sewer rate charges to cities
for disposing of the sewage, by approximately seven percent this year. He stated he had not
previously heard anything in this regard, and inquired if the reduction had been passed on to the
City of Mounds View, and if so, why was the Council not apprised of it.
Mayor Coughlin stated he had discussed this matter, that date, with the Public Works Director,
and he believed this was one of the items that would be brought forward amidst other discussions
of various rates and fees for sewer and water.
Council Member Stigney inquired if the rate reduction pertained to the entire year, or was just
recently put into effect.
Mayor Coughlin stated this was just recently effective, however, he was uncertain if this had
been done since the Metropolitan Council had been newly seated.
Council Member Stigney requested further clarification of this matter, adding that the Mounds
View residents were currently paying a$47.00 flat rate,per quarter.
Mayor Coughlin stated the matter would be brought forward to the Public Works Director.
Finance Director Kessel commented there had been a number of changes in this regard. He
stated that the Metropolitan Council previously took the readings for water usage and billed for
this the following year. He explained this was changed to bring them current, and now they are
billing monthly instead of quarterly. He noted the rate did go down, however, what they are paid
is dependent upon how much water goes through their system, therefore, if the water usage is up,
the rate goes up as well. He explained that although the residents pay the same amount per year,
the amount the City pays the Metropolitan Council fluctuates, based upon the number of gallons
of water they pump. He stated this matter would be addressed during the budget discussion.
Council Member Stigney inquired if this rate reduction was effective as of the first of the year.
Finance Director Kessel stated this was correct.
Council Member Stigney stated, as a Council Member, he questioned why he was not informed
of the rate reduction, and had to learn of it through the Metropolitan Council's newsletter. He
stated this made him unhappy.
Finance Director Kessel stated this was a matter of knowing what information the Council
desires, so staff may provide it.
Council Member Stigney stated this was a matter of communication, and such information
should be provided to the Council Members who represent the residents of the City.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 5
Finance Director Kessel stated once they are aware of the information, they can forward it to the
Council. He explained, however, the City has numerous contracts whose rates consistently
fluctuate, and if the Council desired to know when those rates change the information could be
forwarded.
Council Member Stigney stated he wanted to know whenever rates change which affect what the
residents pay for services in the City. He stated if there is a rate reduction for what is being
charged for actual services, or monies directed to a fund to be maintained, this information
should be conveyed to the Council. He stated the Council should make the decision that this be
passed on to the residents, and in which form.
Finance Director Kessel reiterated that staff receives numerous reports and budgets and inquired
which contracts Council Member Stigney would like to be informed of, in regard to rate changes.
He stated every contract within the City affects taxes. He explained if the Council desired to be
informed when there was a change in gas rates at the gas pumps that information could be
forwarded as well. He remarked that there should be some materiality to this request.
Council Member Stigney reiterated he was very unhappy to have learned about this in a
memorandum he received as a Council Member, and to find out several months after the fact,
that a reduction had been made to the sewer rates, for which they are collecting money from the
residents of the City. He stated as a Council Member, he believed he should be notified of these
matters, and any others that affect the rates being charged to the residents.
Finance Director Kessel stated the reduction was just one component of this matter, and what
they are charged is based upon the water that goes through the system. He explained that if the
usage increases, and the rates decrease, they could still be required to pay the Metropolitan
Council more than they did the previous year.
Council Member Stigney stated he understood this, and this was the reason he would like to see
that the rates are based upon actual metered water usage, rather than flat rates.
Mayor Coughlin stated this was a point well made. He reiterated he had discussed this matter
with the Public Works Director, that date, and suggested Council Member Stigney rely on the
knowledge that this matter would be brought forward, in conjunction with a variety of similar
issues, at the next Work Session.
Finance Director Kessel reported that the City's bulletin board had become inoperable
approximately one month prior. He explained this was an older, computer based system, and
staff had attempted to locate a vendor in the metropolitan area to service the system, and had
found one who indicated the cost to determine the problem would be approximately $600, and
could provide no guarantee that it was repairable.
Finance Director Kessel stated new software could be obtained for less that $1,000, and he
thought this would be a more prudent approach. He explained they had rented a system for two
weeks until the software arrived, and the software was installed last week. He stated the bulletin
board should be operable, and in time, additional pages will be added. He commented this
system provides the capability for a number of pages and pictures, and if there is any information
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 6
the Council would like to see included on the board, they can contact the City Administrator, the
cable television producer, or himself', and they would attempt to do this.
Mayor Coughlin commented the bulletin board looked very good. He stated Patrick Toss, the
cable technician had shown him some of the capabilities of the system and he was very
impressed. He noted it was quite timely that they were researching a new system at the time the
old system failed, and providence had worked in their favor.
Finance Director Kessel noted the Council had requested to obtain standards for televising cable
cast meetings. He reported the Cable Commission would be meeting the following day, to
finalize those standards, and they will be presented to the Council at the Work Session on
September 20. He stated the camera utilized for videos, whether for screen shots from the
podium, or for connecting to the computers, could not be connected to the system. He noted that
three months prior, staff had rented a system for a presentation, and were considering purchasing
this system, at this time. He stated this matter would likely be addressed to the Cable
Commission at the meeting as well. He commented that it was hoped they could have a system in
place to utilize for the upcoming budget presentations. He added that this system was portable,
and could be used for other meetings in other facilities.
Finance Director Kessel stated they have commenced the purchase of laptop computers for the
Council Members. He stated two Council Members have received their computers, and one in
on order, and should be available the following week. He suggested interested Council Members
contact City Administrator Whiting or himself, and they would attempt to provide them with a
computer, as soon as possible.
City Administrator Whiting reported staff had received notification that the meeting held by the
Metropolitan Council in August, concerning the allowable decibel levels in the developments
surrounding airports was not well attended. He noted Representative Haake had attended the
meeting, however, due to poor noticing on the part of the Metropolitan Council, they have
scheduled a second meeting to be held in Fridley on October 13th. He indicated the time and
location of the meeting would be brought forward to the Council at a future meeting.
City Administrator Whiting stated a meeting was held that afternoon, regarding the golf course
issues, including future cash flow, the ability to meet the requirements of the operations, and debt
obligations. He explained at the previous Work Session, they had discussed some form of an
interfund loan to assist the golf course through periods when it would not be able to meet those
obligations, based upon the projections provided by staff He stated one of the suggestions was
to borrow from the Special Projects Funds, and to utilize some form of Council action to
guarantee its repayment. He explained after further examination, they considered the option of a
different fund, and essentially attempting to keep that action as far removed from the General
Fund as possible. He indicated they had consulted an attorney from Briggs and Morgan, who
had done the bond work for the golf course, as well a majority of the TIF agreements, regarding
whether or not they could utilize tax increment funds for this purpose. He commented the
attorney advised this would probably not be the case. He indicated, however, there are some
provisions that have come forward through the Legislature and the State Auditor's Office, which
may suggest that some of the TIF funds could be accounted for in a manner which would relieve
them of some of the restrictions they typically assume exist with TIF. He noted that this matter
required further research.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 7
City Administrator Whiting suggested that if the Council is interested in reviewing this option,
staff be directed to conduct the research in time for the Work Session next week, and revisit the
issue at that time. He reiterated the purpose of this would be to remove this loan as far from the
General Fund as possible, and hence, remove any tax liability which may occur in that regard,
which was indicated as a concern during previous discussion.
Finance Director Kessel stated the TIF Districts will expire in the years 2013 through 2015. He
explained at point, unless some other mechanism comes forward, or some other TIF District is
created, the funding sources for any economic development activities, housing replacement
programs, etc, will cease to exist. He noted in light of this, many cities attempt to set up
revolving loan funds, and various permanent funding sources to provide they can continue to
proceed with they types of projects. He explained that they could set up an economic
development fund, restricting the money to economic development, and therefore, when the TIF
Districts expire, there would be some means to continue with these projects. He commented this
was a matter worth pursuing, as once the TIF Districts expire, further funds can not be expended
from them, and any funds that they do have would require to be paid back to the County for
redistribution. He stated this appeared to be a valuable tool for the Council in the future.
City Administrator Whiting stated he believed this matter was worthy of further investigation, if
the City desired to pursue a long-term economic development program. He stated this option
would provide some flexibility in regard to what is eligible in terms of non-economic or
development issues as well. He stated it would be worthwhile to spend some time on this matter,
and postpone making a decision as it is proposed on the present agenda.
Mayor Coughlin stated he had also attended the meeting, and concurred that this option was
worthy of further discussion at the next Work Session.
City Administrator Whiting stated that over the years, the Metropolitan Council has done much
to curb the cost of metropolitan sewer treatment. He stated he would encourage the Council
Members who are interested in this issue to attend the meetings that have been held to determine
new efficiencies in this area. He stated he was not aware that all of the comments have been
passed along to the member cities as a cost savings, or if there was any particular notice to the
City of Mounds View regarding the rates. He stated he was uncertain if there was anything in
the article Council Member Stigney referred to, that specifically targeted the City of Mounds
View. He commented that one of the successes of the Metropolitan Waste District, is their
ability to bring under control some of the costs that have not been previously monitored.
City Administrator Whiting commented that he and Council Member Stigney had discussed the
issue of changing the method of calculation of the sewer rates to a user based formula, a month
earlier. He stated at that time, he had suggested this was an appropriate issue to bring forward
during the budget discussion in the fall, at which time, they would be more aware of the related
funds and expenses.
Mayor Coughlin welcomed City Attorney Long back from his vacation.
City Attorney Long thanked Mayor Coughlin, and commented regarding the signage changes on
County 10.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 8
Mayor Coughlin informed City Attorney Long that the Council has requested discussion of the
name change and the possible redevelopment of County 10 in the future. He stated there had
been considerable difficulty in giving directions to people in light of the new signage.
City Administrator Whiting stated one of the projects he had undertaken was to discuss the old
Highway 10 with the City Administrator from Spring Lake Park and the City Manager from
Blaine, and inquire if they had noticed any changes in regard to traffic levels on that road. He
stated that some business owners and residents had commented in this regard, and had not
noticed anything in particular. He added they did not appear to consider Highway 10 to be one
of the main focuses of transportation within their community. He advised, therefore, if there
was interest in this regard in Mounds View, it should be brought forward and discussed. He
explained that if anything were to happen, he would think they would have to work on the issue,
which may go beyond a name change. He stated the City's stretch of Highway 10 through the
community is not the primary focus of the I-35W Corridor Coalition, however, it may be for the
Council, Planning Commission and the residents, and it would be helpful to determine what
options and interests the people have.
Mayor Coughlin noted that at the last Council meeting, they had planned to set up a meeting for
discussion, and a focus group comprised of interested parties to address these issues, before the
matter is further underway.
No further reports were considered.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims.
B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., September 27, 1999, to Consider
Resolution 5366, a Resolution Contemplating the Issuance of a Conditional
Use Permit for an Over-sized Garage at 8011 Sunnyside Road.
C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., September 27, 1999, to Consider
Resolution 5369 Certifying Delinquent Accounts to the Associated Property's
Property Taxes.
D. Licenses for Approval.
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, C, and D
as presented.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated it was a "breath of fresh air" to attend the Council
meetings under the new Mayor and Council Members. He noted he had seen Mayors throw
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 9
papers at other Council Members and belittle them, and Council Members belittle each other,
and this was very disturbing. He thanked Mayor Coughlin and the Council for not behaving in
this manner.
Mr. Jahnke stated when the new Council and Mayor were elected the people had thought there
would be a change in City policy, in terms of expenses. He commented that he was aware that
Mayor Coughlin had inherited many of these expenses, one in particular, was the golf course,
which did not ever seem to go away. He stated the people were promised that the golf course
would"never cost them a nickel,"however, he was presently hearing about a new proposal.
Mr. Jahnke suggested the Council might wish to take another look at the golf course issue. He
stated one of the Council Members had suggested they abandon the golf course and turn the
property into some type of a business park. He commented that he was formerly the president of
a credit union, and was knowledgeable of financial matters, and was beginning to question the
current policy in this regard.
Mr. Jahnke stated another of his concerns was that they were promised that the fees on the sewer
service would expire. He stated this matter has come forward several times, and to date, the
expiration has not occurred. He noted the item was again present on the agenda.
Mr. Jahnke stated he had been involved in the Community Center discussion from its inception,
and it has been the subject of many debates. He inquired although he did not disagree with the
current proposal for showers at the Community Center, how much more money would be put
into this project. He stated Mounds View is a community of approximately four square miles,
which is not a big community. He commented that some of the projects have been vested with a
large amount of money, and he was beginning to wonder if they were going to get out of these
obligations. He stated the Council was elected to implement changes.
Mr. Jahnke commented that he was pleased that money had been saved during the purchase of
the golf course pickup truck. He noted, however, they still have the old pickup. He stated it
appears they continue to purchase, and the problem never diminishes. He requested the Council
be more conservative in these matters.
Mr. Jahnke stated he had discussed these issues with each of the Council Members, individually,
and that he and some of the residents were wondering if a change was going to occur.
Mayor Coughlin thanked Mr. Jahnke for his comments. He stated Mr. Jahnke was correct in his
statement that, with the change over of representation in the City, he was operating under a
budget that was not set by himself, or the majority of the present Council Members. He
explained the Council is, therefore, somewhat restrained in what they can and can not do, in that
they are essentially acting under someone else's vision.
Mayor Coughlin stated the Council was keeping abreast of the issues, and in fact, were operating
below the set budget for the previous year. He explained that, with few exceptions, such as the
airport issue, they are keeping well within the budget.
Mayor Coughlin stated the issue of sewer and water fees would likely be discussed at great
length during the Work Session meeting on the following Monday. He noted that the golf course
has obligations. He explained that bonds had been set up long before he was Mayor, and
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 10
whether or not they operate the golf course, they are still obligated to pay those bonds. He
advised that the good credit and faith of Mounds View had been put up behind those bonds, and
the obligations must be met.
Mayor Coughlin stated he was putting his best effort towards attempting to meet the City's
obligations, and get out from under them, however, this takes time. He commented he had 22
years left in which to pay the mortgage on his house, and it always appears like this obligation
will never end, however, as is father had once stated "If you live long enough, you will
accomplish it." He explained that it was hoped they would outlive the obligations at the golf
course, and would ultimately be money far ahead.
Mayor Coughlin stated it would be exceedingly difficult to turn the golf course into a business
park, or even sell the land to a private developer, due to the origin of the land. He explained that
some of the land came from park dedication, some from MNDot, and a variety of plots were
dedicated for different purposes. He stated he had recently written an article for the Mounds
View Matters, which indicates that it is not possible for a group of five to make everybody
happy. He stated all they can do is try their best, and Lord willing, they are given God's grace to
do the right thing at the right time.
Council Member Marty stated the Council was aware that the golf course would have to be paid
off, however, the golf course would be a good source of revenue when this is accomplished. He
stated that Brightwood Hills golf course, in the City of New Brighton has been around for quite
some time, and it has been paid off He stated it has been supplying quite a source of revenue for
New Brighton, and in fact, they are doing so well, they will be constructing an entirely new
clubhouse at that golf course. He stated the present Council did not ask for the golf course,
however, it was up to them to determine how to get the point where it pays off. He stated he
appreciated Mr. Jahnke's comments.
Mayor Coughlin added that in the months he has been the Mayor, the Council has worked very
well, and is very committed to doing the right thing. He noted they do not always agree,
however, in the mix of ideas, the majority of what is done is good, and hopefully, that which
leaves something to be desired, is limited in its nature. He extended his appreciation to the
Members of the Council, and the support staff for making this an effective working group.
Rich Sonterre, 5060 Red Oak Drive stated he was a businessman who was considering Mounds
View as a location for a new site. He stated his company had performed a traffic count between
the hours of 4:00 and 5:30 p.m., on Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road, prior to the change over,
and once again, since that time. He stated, in an hour and a half period there were approximately
250 fewer cars on the highway, which represents a significant difference.
City Administrator Whiting inquired if this would affect Mr. Sonterre's business planning. Mr.
Sonterre stated this would make a significant difference in what he would expect the property
owners to charge him for the subject site.
Mr. Sonterre stated his reason for attending the meeting was to discuss the future of Woodcrest
Park. He stated he did not think there was a great amount of public notification, in terms of the
specific details of the project. He stated he had heard a variety of comments regarding the
proposed plans for the park, and requested clarification in this regard.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 11
Mr. Sonterre stated he had lived on Red Oak Drive near Woodcrest Park, for approximately six
years, and in that time, has seen many changes in the demographics of that neighborhood. He
stated that, being the father of a two and four-year old, the issue that most concerns him, is the
great number of children on his block and the block adjacent to the Red Oak Drive. He
commented that children are everywhere. He stated the parents in the neighborhood have come
together to express concerns regarding the amount and speed of the traffic in the area, as well as
another of their main concerns, which is the park.
Mr. Sonterre stated between County Road H and H-2, Long Lake and Silver Lake Road,
Woodcrest Park is the only park their children can get to without having to cross a major
intersection. He explained the only other park in the City that they can bring their children to is
Random Park, which limits the children that it is appropriate for, to a very young age. He
commented that they could use some of the parks is New Brighton, as well, and these parks have
undergone some appealing changes, however, as a resident of Mounds View, he would like to
see a quality park for the children in their neighborhoods. He added that he would like that park
to be located so as not to necessitate their children to cross a major intersection.
Mayor Coughlin noted this item was scheduled for consideration later in the meeting, however,
in the interest of time, suggested it be addressed at this time.
Public Work Director Ulrich provided the Council with a copy of the preliminary plans for
Woodcrest Park, noting that some changes had been made. He explained that a walking trail was
proposed to go through the entire park. He stated the water quality pond in the southeast corner
would be changed slightly, however, the path will continue to the northeast, and the northeast
corner will contain a playground structure.
Director of Public Works Ulrich commented they might encounter some difficulty when
attempting to raise the existing playground structure, which is 13 years old, and was originally
placed in a very wet area of the park. He stated the concrete footings of the structure are
substantial. He indicated they would attempt to raise the structure, and some of the pieces may
be used, replaced, or a new structure might need to be budgeted for, and placed on the site in the
future.
Director of Public Works Ulrich explained that the reason this park was identified as the top site
in town for the wetland mitigation of the Community Center project, was because it was a very
wet parcel 25 years ago. He stated they have performed some borings of the land, and have
identified approximately 4,000 yards of fill that has been placed on the site, primarily consisting
of street sweepings and asphalt. He noted it was very common in the past, for communities to
utilize such sites for dumping purposes.
Director of Public Works Ulrich noted that the park was difficult to maintain, particularly in the
wet years, and that was the reason it was considered the number one site to turn back to a
wetland status, and develop into a somewhat passive area. He stated the City Council had
decided to utilize the northeast corner for the playground structure, based upon some of the
resident comments that they keep some type of a playground in that park.
Mayor Coughlin stated a public hearing was held, and a fair amount of input was received from
the residents of the area. He stated the majority of the residents recognized the parcel was wet,
and wanted it to remain a park, therefore the Council has returned most of the park to its natural
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 12
stated, with the addition of a nature trail with park benches. He noted some of the Cub Scout
Leaders had indicated this would be ideal natural area for their troops to collect leaves and nuts
for merit badges, and yet maintain the spirit of the park by relocating the playground equipment
to a relatively dry area. He explained that this would allow for greater use of the park, even
during the wet years. He noted the original playground equipment had been placed on one of the
lowest spots on the parcel, and inquired regarding the reason for this.
Public Works Director Ulrich stated he believed this was because the hockey rink boards took up
the dry lands that were farther to the north and east, and when all the other amenities were
installed, this seemed to be the logical placement for the playground. He noted there was also a
sand volleyball court at the site, which in many years, is under water and unusable. He stated
this was not an ideal location for the type of equipment that is presently there, and he thought the
drier area of the northeast corner would be much more conducive to use.
Council Member Marty stated it was his understanding that there is a peat bog in this area.
Director of Public Works stated this was correct, and added that there was additional wetland to
the north. He explained that a portion of the park serves as a storm water holding area because
there are ditches on both sides to the south and west. He stated the proposal would remove the
ditches, and there would be a more gradual slope into the lowlands of the park. He explained
that the highlands will be outlined with the walking path, and there will be gradual wetland area
in the entire middle section of the park. He commented that only the existing water quality
ponds are expected to hold water, and are expected to have a high water level, which will then
overflow into the wetland. He stated, however, the majority of the water should be contained in
the ponds. He added that this was also a reason that the Rice Creek Watershed District and the
Board of Water Resources was very favorable to this park location.
Council Member Marty inquired if the park, the equipment and the path would be maintained
once the playground is completed. He noted it did not appear that Woodcrest Park had been well
maintained in the past.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the park has received maintenance, however, it has not
received a large amount of capital investment dollars in the past. He stated the park is mowed on
a regular basis, and the unsightly aspect is due to the ditches. He explained that the Public
Works Department did not have any equipment, nor have they been able to locate a contractor
who can mow the ditches, as they are at an extreme slope. He stated the perimeter of the park
appears somewhat unsightly, however, all of the areas that are accessible have been maintained
and mowed.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that when the path is constructed, there would be a two-
foot area in which to operate a mower to keep the weeds from the path. He noted there would
also be some sod laid to keep the encroachment of weeds on the path. He commented there
would also be natural grasses and wetland grasses planted to bring the area back into its natural
state.
Mr. Sonterre stated he agreed with Council Member Marty, in that the mowing has occurred in
areas where there is grass, however, he has not once in six years found the volleyball court to be
usable. He stated the amount of grass and weeds growing in that area, in addition to the lack of a
net, made using the volleyball court impossible.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 13
Mr. Sonterre stated the residents have not used the playground equipment in the past two
months, because there had not been any maintenance to the playground area during the entire
summer. He commented that the playground area is presently knee-high in weeds and thistles,
He acknowledged that mowing has been done, and has improved the situation, however, he
would like some verification that the park will be maintained in the future.
Mr. Sonterre stated the plans appeared to be very attractive, and he would be happy to have this
in his neighborhood. He commented that the area was a breeding ground for mosquitoes, and
inquired if there had been any consultation with the Department of Natural Resources in this
regard.
City Administrator Whiting stated he was uncertain if they specifically target Woodcrest Park,
however, they do spray the City once a month via helicopter, and if the area is indicated on their
map as wetland to treat, it is treated.
Mr. Sonterre inquired if they would be made aware of the significant increase in the amount of
wetland in that area. City Administrator Whiting stated staff would provide notification in this
regard.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated they had gone through the process for many months, in
the knowledge that the park was planned to become a wetland, and acknowledged that the
maintenance on the playground structures has been slack. He explained they had installed sand
volleyball courts in both Woodcrest and Greenfield Parks, twice replacing the nets, and within
days the nets are gone. He explained that the Park and Recreation Commission had advised the
nets be kept in the office, and be available to the residents upon requests.
Council Member Marty stated he had been to the park recently with his 2%2-year old. He
acknowledged that the rest of the park was mowed. He commented, however, the ditches do
give the impression of a lack of maintenance in the park.
Mike Doran, 1592 Mounds View Drive, stated he had purchased a home in the area, and had
lived there for approximately five months. He explained that the primary reason they chose this
house was because of the park. He stated he was concerned regarding the playground, and felt it
was used quite regularly. He stated he did not see any thistles in the area. He stated he had been
to the park with his Godchildren, and he and his wife were expecting a child. He commented
that County Road H is a busy road. He explained that both he and his wife worked, and he did
not want to have his children crossing the roads to get to the park. He stated he was not
concerned with the rest of the park, and if it was a swamp or tall weeds, in his opinion, it would
look the same, however, he would hope they keep the playground.
Mayor Coughlin stated it had been the unanimous consensus of the Council to keep the park at
this location. He explained that the playground equipment would simply be relocated to a higher
and drier area in the hope that it could be used more often.
Mr. Doran stated this has been a fairly wet year, and there has never been a time they could not
go out and play in the park. He stated he did not realize that they could rent a net, adding that
they had considered purchasing a net.
Mayor Coughlin stated staff would make this point better known to the residents.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 14
Mr. Doran requested earlier notification of the public hearing date. He stated he had just
received his notification that date, and if it could be received a day or two earlier, it would help
to bring people in to the meetings.
Mayor Coughlin stated a public hearing to discuss the matter had been held several months prior,
and the notices were sent out at that time. He stated he had also corresponded with Mr. Sonterre
in this regard.
Mr. Doran thanked the Council for their time. Mayor Coughlin thanked Mr. Doran for his
comments.
There were no further requests or comments from the floor.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 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.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing for Items 10 A and 10 A-1, at 8:10 p.m.
City Administrator Whiting stated there are three related ordinances on the agenda that evening,
including the added agenda item 10 A-1, Ordinance 630. He explained that Item A is the Public
Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 635, and after the public comment is taken, if the
Council so chooses, they would vote to adopt this ordinance.
City Administrator Whiting stated the same condition exists for Item C on the agenda, which is
indicated as the Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance 640, however, is actually the
Second Reading. He noted Item 10 A-1 is the Second Reading and continuation of the Public
Hearing of Ordinance 630.
City Attorney Long stated the ordinances presently before the Council had been discussed at
several meetings. He explained Ordinance 630, the right-of-way ordinance, is the City's general
right-of-way authority, and is modeled after the model right-of-way ordinance compiled by the
League of Minnesota Cities. He explained that this ordinance provides cities more control over
issues relating to the rights-of-way, including the recovery of cost to the taxpayers which might
occur with the degradation of roads due to utilities, cable television companies, and other similar
service providers. He explained that the Legislature had provided this to the cities as their
authority to maintain some control over what goes into the right-of-way. He stated that Item
10A, Ordinance 635, is related in terms of providing the City authority to require a utility to
underground their services. He explained that the adoption of Ordinance 635 would provide the
City the authority to require undergrounding, however, the City would not be obligated to do so.
City Attorney stated Item 10C, Ordinance 640, was an ordinance amending Title 900 in different
areas, to make it consistent with the other two proposed ordinances, and is basically an
housekeeping item, once the first two ordinances are adopted.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 15
There was no public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearings for Items 10 A, and 10 A-1, at 8.13 p.m.
Council Member Marty stated he was under the impression they had desired to include stronger
language in Ordinance 630, Chapter 910, however, the only place he had seen this reflected was
on Page 18, Section 910.30, which indicates "to enforce the general ordinances necessary to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the public." He inquired if this language should be more
specific and firm.
City Attorney Long advised that the general language is to the City's advantage, as the language
pertaining to the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the public is accompanied by a
history of case law regarding cities having police and regulatory powers when they are acting in
this capacity. He explained that in this context, if they were exercising the police powers to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, to prevent someone from digging
underground, they would be acting within their broadest range of powers. He explained by
leaving the language general, they would actually have broader powers than if they were to make
the language more specific, from a legal standpoint.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To Approve the Second Reading and Adopt
Ordinance 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.
1. Roll Call: Coughlin, Marty, Stigney, and Thomason.
Not Present: Quick
2. Vote
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
A.1. Continuation of the Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 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.
City Attorney Long stated this is the general right-of-way management ordinance that creates a
new Chapter 910, which sets forth the new frame work for managing the rights-of-way, both in
terms of when they can be restricted, and in terms of recovering costs for the degradation of
streets.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Marty. To Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance
630, 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.
1. Roll Call: Coughlin, Marty, Stigney, and Thomason.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 16
Not Present: Quick
2. Vote
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion Carried.
B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 637, an Ordinance
Amending Section 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code to Set Signage
Standards in the PF (Public Facilities) and CRP (Conservancy, Recreational
and Preservation) Zoning Districts.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:21 p.m.
Community Development Director Jopke stated the City Council had requested the Planning
Commission and City staff to review whether or not the City might want to allow billboards
within the community, specifically in the golf course area, as a potential source of revenue. He
explained that as the research of this matter progressed, they discovered additional issues, which
required further investigation. He stated one of these issues is that the current Sign Code does
not specifically allow any signage within the PF (Public Facilities) or CRP (Conservancy,
Recreational and Preservation) Zoning Districts, which includes the City Hall, parks and the golf
course. He stated the Planning Commission felt there were some legal issues relating to the
overall billboard discussion, and that they should move forward with this item, to clarify the
existing problem within the Code.
Community Development Director Jokpe stated City Attorney Long is presently reviewing the
matter, and has indicated that the separation of these two considerations might result in some
complications. He stated Ordinance 637, the ordinance presently before the Council, would
amend the Code to allow signage within the PF and CRP Zoning District, utilizing the same
basic standards that are allowed in Neighborhood Business Districts. He stated this would allow
both building signage of 100 square feet, and pedestal freestanding signs, with the provision that
if the sign is within 100 feet of a residence, it can not exceed 40 square feet in area.
Community Development Director Jopke stated the existing signage at the parks and the City
Hall will fit into the standards that are being proposed. He stated the Planning Commission has
unanimously recommended approval of this ordinance.
City Attorney Long stated Ordinance 637 is acceptable as it stands, however, between this and
the Second Reading of this ordinance they may learn more about what the Planning Commission
would like to accomplish with the question relating to billboards near the golf course. He noted
language in the ordinance, in both clauses m and n, which indicates "such signs shall identify or
relate to the activities that are intended to occur on that site," and explained that this would limit
any outside party advertising, and relate only to the use on that site. He explained that if the
long-term desire is to include outside advertising from a private company, they might wish to
incorporate the ability to allow for this in this zoning amendment, to prevent the necessity of
different ordinances for different treatment.
City Attorney Long stated the deed restrictions have been reviewed, and it has been determined,
from a legal standpoint, that a major parcel of the golf course land originated from the State of
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 17
Minnesota, and is subject to a deed restriction that it must be utilized for a public purpose. He
stated the first question for consideration was if you could you have billboards on that property
and meet the public purpose restriction in the deed. He stated the answer to this is yes. He stated
the second question was how to handle the zoning issue, and that is where there may be some
relationship. He reiterated that the present ordinance is acceptable, however, if they learn that
there is a way to incorporate that change in this language, it may come back for Second Reading
in such a manner that covers both issues.
There was no public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:26 p.m.
Council Member Marty stated City Attorney Long had brought forward some very good points.
He commented he is not an advocate of billboards, however, there are escalating bond payments
at the golf course, and if it was necessary to incorporate this language in the ordinance, they
should also include a date when the bonds would be paid off.
Mayor Coughlin explained this was a separate issue, and the present consideration related more
to the zoning issue than the billboard issue.
Community Development Director Jopke stated they were presently considering an additional
ordinance section, which indicates that in certain districts, billboards can be allowed by
Conditional Use Permit. He explained that they would set a number of standards in regard to
size, height, design, and the like, as a part of that process.
Community Development Director Jopke commented that he understood the concern City
Attorney Long had brought forward, regarding the language of the ordinance. He explained that
this language was added to the original ordinance, in that the Planning Commission wanted the
signs to relate to the activity at the site, in general. He noted this matter required additional
discussion, and an understanding of the impact these considerations would have on each other.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if this matter would come before the Planning Commission again, prior
to City Council action.
Community Development Director Jopke stated it would. He explained that they were waiting to
receive the opinion from the City Attorney's office, and when that is forwarded they will
proceed.
Council Member Stigney stated in his understanding as Council Liaison, the ordinance presently
before the Council was for housekeeping purposes, to accomplish allowing the valid use of signs
that currently exist within the City. He explained that in terms of going beyond that toward
billboards, the matter is still undetermined.
Council Member Stigney noted the Planning Commission was directed to review the feasibility
of the billboard issue, and what the legal ramifications of it were. He stated that this is a separate
issue, and he did not want to see the present consideration be directed towards billboards,
because it does not pertain to billboards. He stated if staff desired to come out with some change
to support billboards, and create a special Conditional Use Permit to do so, this should be
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 18
handled as an entirely different matter. He stated he believed this was also the perspective of the
Planning Commission.
Council Member Marty stated he agreed. Mayor Coughlin stated this was also his
understanding.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Approve the First Reading of Ordinance No 637, an
Ordinance Amending Chapter 10089 (Signs and Billboards) of the Mounds View Municipal
Code Pertaining to Permitted Signage in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreation,
Preservation Zoning Districts, Planning Case SP-073-99.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney stated that he believed this item should stand alone, and it appeared to
him that it is being modified at this time. He stated he would like to see any modifications that
are different from this ordinance, handled separately, and not as a part of this ordinance.
Mayor Coughlin stated this could be addressed upon the Second Reading and if necessary, it can
be amended at that time.
Council Member Stigney stated that if the wording was going to expand to allow billboards at
the golf course, he objected to at this time. He added he was in favor of approving the First
Reading of the ordinance, as it is presently written.
C. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 640, an Ordinance
Amending Title 900, Chapter 902 Relating to Driveways and Repealing
Provisions of Chapter 902 Relating to Street Openings
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m.
There was no public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:31 p.m.
Mayor Coughlin stated that one of the first volatile episodes with the Council was the discussion
of curb cuts and corner lots. He stated the spirit of this issue is in regard to the sections being
removed from this Chapter, due to the addition of the undergrounding. He stated he thought it
would be more efficient, and would save the City both time and money to incorporate the
discussions of curb cuts into this Chapter. He added he was in favor of approving the First
Reading of this ordinance, as written. He stated, however, he would request the Council direct
staff to include the curb cut discussions and related issues from earlier in the year, into the
language, to provide that the same ordinance does not have to go through the entire process
again.
City Administrator Whiting explained that this item was the Second Reading of this ordinance,
and any changes should be made prior to the vote.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would then request the Council continue this matter until a later
meeting for final approval.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 19
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Continue the Second Reading of Ordinance 640, an
Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 902 Relating to Driveways and Repealing Provisions of
Chapter 902 Relating to Street Openings, Until a Later Meeting.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney inquired if this matter would be brought forward at the next Work
Session. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct, or an upcoming Work Session.
D. Public Hearing and First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 639, an
Ordinance Amending Chapters 1109 and 1110 of the Mounds View Zoning
Code Pertaining to Conditional Uses within the R-4 and R-5 Zoning
Districts.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8.36 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this is the ordinance that was suggested by the Planning
Commission in conjunction with a request by MSP Real Estate to construct a senior residential
facility on a vacant lot, behind SuperAmerica, on Mounds View Drive. He stated one of the
concerns was that the City Code is somewhat vague and ambiguous in regard to group housing.
He noted the discussion centered upon amending the Code with regard to senior housing, and
rather than "nursing homes and similar group housing," the language be amended to indicate
"nursing homes and other senior congregate housing." He explained that this eliminates any
question as to what type of housing is being proposed. He noted the intent of the Code appeared
to indicate that the use be senior housing, however, the language."other similar housing" made it
somewhat vague, and this ordinance would change that.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this ordinance stipulates specific parking requirements for
these types of uses, which are based upon the number of beds, which would be one stall for every
three beds. He explained it also requires one stall for every employee on the maximum shift
having the most personnel present. He stated the ordinance before the Council contains some
language that staff would propose be changed, and this will be done for the Second Reading. He
explained that Ordinance 639, Item 1 is amended to include the following: "The required
parking ratio shall be one stall per employee on the busiest shift," and staff was proposing that be
changed to "one stall per employee on the shift having the most personnel present." He stated
this was to insure that the amendment does not add any more confusion, and this language
appears to be very clear regarding the number of parking stalls that would be required.
There was no public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8.39 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Marty. To Approve the First Reading of Ordinance No. 639,
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.
Aye—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 20
Council Member Stigney stated he understood the parking requirement to be one stall per
employee on the busiest shift. He inquired regarding the implications of the word "employee."
He explained that many employees are contract people coming in and out of the building. He
inquired if someone was contracted for a day, would they also require a parking stall to be
provided for them, or does this just pertain to full-time employees.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the intent was to consider a person an employee, if they were
going to be present eight hours a day, five days a week, on any given shift. He explained that it
would probably be a judgement call at the time this type of use came before the City with the
Conditional Use procedure, as to how they would clarify or quantify the number of employees.
He stated this was a valid point. He noted staff did not want to further complicate the issue by
indicating full-time equivalent, consultants, and the like, and given that this type of use would
have to come before the City Council, they felt this language would be adequate. He explained
that they could respond to each proposal coming forward, knowing that the number of stalls
would be for the number of people present on one shift, be that consultants or employees. He
added that he did not think the Code intends to provide a stall for someone who is there, for
example, two hours each week, but certainly for someone who will be present on a full-time
basis.
Council Member Stigney noted that it was presented that a large portion of the facilities' staffing
would be handled on a contract basis, however, he thought this language provided would
probably be sufficient for the overall purpose intended.
E. Consideration of Resolution 5370, a Resolution Regarding Changing
Rooms/Showers at the Community Center.
Teri Blattenbauer, YMCA Program Executive, provided the Council with information requested
at the August 23, City Council Meeting, in regard to the additional projected revenue from the
additional amenity to the Community Center. She stated that very conservatively, through
additional in-house and MSS sponsored tournaments at different times throughout the day, they
projected $5,600 for the first year. She reiterated this was a conservative estimate.
Ms. Blattenbauer stated the additional projected expense, which would include the cleaning and
maintenance supplies, water, etc, would be approximately $7,500 for the first year. She noted
they anticipate that in subsequent years they could increase the revenue to almost double the
estimate, approximately $10,000.
Ms. Blattenbauer stated staff had contacted two architectural firms, to determine the architectural
fees, which were not included in the original cost estimate, and the original fee would be
approximately $12,000. She stated of the two contacts she had made, one was $4,000 less than
the other. She stated it would be her recommendation to hire the architectural engineers who had
bid in at the lower end.
Ms. Blattenbauer stated at this point, the cost estimate provided by the plumbers and the
construction company totaled $111, 300, and the total amount with the architectural fees would
not exceed $130,000. She stated staff would like to proceed with the bidding process. She noted
they had received additional information pertaining to TIF funding that date, as well.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 21
Finance Director Kessel clarified that the total numbers of the original estimates did not come up
to $130,000, however, these were estimates, and not bids, therefore staff slightly increased the
amount to insure that there would be adequate monies when the bids are received. He noted that
if the bids come in based upon the estimates they expect they will be $10,000 to $15,000 less
than that. He explained these were the same architects that handled the remodeling of City Hall,
and the City has worked with them in the past. He added this was the firm who bid in $4,000
less than the architects involved in the construction of the Community Center.
Finance Director Kessel stated staff had discussed TIF at the meeting that date, and had
determined this to be an eligible TIF expenditure, provided the contracts are entered into, or the
project completed prior to December 31, 1999.
Mayor Coughlin added that a letter of intent toward the concept would also suffice.
Council Member Stigney inquired if TIF funds were presently available, or if this was based
upon projected excess TIF funds.
Finance Director Kessel stated there are $100,000 TIF dollars available at this point in time. He
explained they would be receiving the grant funds for the Community Center. He noted the
number that has always been used prior to this $110,000 to $130,000, is 6.2 million. He stated
that actually the TIF funds that are required are $354,000 less than that, because they have
received a state grant, and those funds should be delivered to the City within the next several
days.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the amount of this grant. Finance Director Kessel
stated it was $354,000.
Council Member Stigney inquired if this was a grant for the City to utilize at the Community
Center. Finance Director Kessel stated this was correct.
Council Member Stigney inquired why, therefore, TIF funds were necessary for the present
proposal. Finance Director Kessel explained these were still TIF funds, however, since the grant
was for the Community Center, the 6.2 million was what the Council had authorized up to this
point. He commented that if the present resolution is approved it would increase the amount to
6.3 million, and if they subtracted the state grant, it would be $350,000 less than that.
Council Member Marty inquired if they could not just utilize the grant money, or if it was
already spent. Finance Director Kessel stated this money was intended for the Community
Center, not for showers,. He explained that, in addition, the City had to match the grant amount,
and would therefore have to spend twice the amount. He explained that they reimburse the cost
up to $350,000. He stated the total project cost with this resolution would be $6,330,000.00, the
funding source would be 5.9 million of TIF, and $350,000 state grants.
City Administrator Whiting stated the grant was received through the Department of Children
Families and Learning. He explained that part of the reason they obtained the grant was because
they were creating a space for youth, specifically 7 to 13 year old boys and girls, and in the
programming for them, they financed the construction of that project. He stated they had to
show the project was completed before they would be reimbursed, and those funds are going
back into the Special Projects account.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 22
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Approve Resolution 5370, a Resolution
Authorizing Use of Tax Increment Financing for Shower and Changing Rooms at Community
Center and to Authorize Hiring of Architect, Preparation of Plans, Specifications, and Bidding of
Project.
Ayes—3 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney stated he thought when they set the limit on TIF at 6.2 million, this was
the limit. He explained that the addition of showers could have been done at much less expense
at the time of construction, and he did not believe that doing this retroactively was the thing to
do. He stated in regard to TIF, there might be grant money available that can be utilized for such
projects, however, TIF is not free money. He stated he did not support making this type of
change at this time.
F. Staff Report regarding Woodcrest Park Mitigation Project.
Mayor Coughlin noted the staff report for this item had been provided earlier in the meeting.
Director of Public Works Ulrich provided an overview of the bids staff had received from seven
contractors for the Woodcrest Park mitigation project as follows:
Arnt Construction $126,569.50
Forest Lake Contracting $126,798.60
G&L Contracting $131,416.10
FF Jedicki, Inc. $152,276.50
FM Frattalone $166,787.50
Jay Brothers, Inc. $183,237.45
W.B. Miller, Inc. $198,950.25
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff recommends Council award the project to the low
bidder, Arnt Construction.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated there were six or seven alternates for the removal of some
of the park equipment, which includes grills, picnic tables, a drinking fountain, a slab, and some
associated fixtures. He stated the most expensive consideration was the removal of an
approximate 4,000 feet of timbers that surround the playground equipment. He stated staff
would request and recommend the Council approve the alternates as well. He noted staff thought
they would advertise, and if they received a favorable bid, they would have a contractor do the
removal, rather than City staff.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the shelter located at the park was planned to be burned
by the Fire Department, as an exercise. He explained that after the bids were already received,
the Fire Chief expressed to staff that he had some concerns regarding the burning of the building,
with relationship to smoke, and possible indications to the neighborhood, and informed staff that
he would not burn the building.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated he had left a voice mail message with the Fire Chief
requesting he change his mind, or provide some funds to have the contractor demolish the
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 23
building and haul it off the site. He explained they were presently investigating the shelter to
determine if there are any hazardous materials contained in it, however, they do not believe this
to be the case, as it was previously, just a temporary classroom. He advised that staff was
anticipating a change order on this item, for the contractor to demolish the building and haul it
off the site if it is not allowed to be burned. He stated this was why the change order percentage
was at 15 percent. He stated typically, this would be approximately 10 percent, however, staff
was not fully aware of what the contractor would charge if they have to haul the building off the
site.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Marty. To Approve Awarding the Woodcrest Park Mitigation
Project to Arnt Construction for a Total Bid of$131,930.50, and to Authorize the Director of
Public Works to Sign Off All Change Orders Up to a Maximum of Fifteen Percent of the Project.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney stated the change order was previously 10 percent contingency of the
bid, and inquired why staff was requesting 15 percent.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this appeared to be a very simple project, primarily the
excavation and the removal of the dirt, however, the change order is typically 10 percent. He
explained that the only thing that had come into the proposal late, was the removal of the
building, which according to the Fire Chief is not going to be allowed to be burned, and
therefore, they would have to have someone haul it off the site.
Council Member Stigney stated he thought Director of Public Works Ulrich had indicated he was
still working with the Fire Chief in this regard.
Director of Public Works stated he had left a voice mail message for the Fire Chief the previous
Friday, and the Fire Chief had indicated through his voice mail, that he was conducting other
business related to his job. He explained at this point, he had not heard whether or not the Fire
Chief would change his mind.
Council Member Stigney stated that change order norm was 10 percent, and he would suggest
staff remain at 10 percent. He added if there is some other consideration to deal with, and if the
Fire Chief can not burn the structure, then staff can come back and request additional funds.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated they had utilized the statements that authorize staff to
sign the change orders, in the event they get into the project, and the contractor indicates they
need a certain amount of dollars to proceed. He stated that any delay in this project could also
cost them money through the contractor because he is being denied work. He stated this is why
staff always incorporates the last sentence to sign change orders so they do not have to come
back before the Council within two weeks. He stated that they attempt to keep this within a
reasonable amount of money related to the project. He explained that if they wish to lower the
percentage, and anything comes in higher than that amount, staff would have to come back to the
Council for approval.
Council Member Stigney inquired if this was not the norm.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 24
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this would depend upon the project. He explained the
Community Center project change order was only 5 percent. He stated that typically, the higher
the project value, the lower the change order authorization. He stated the seal coat project
change order authorization was 15 percent, and this was a$90,000 project.
Council Member Marty inquired when the project would commence.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated commencement was anticipated within the next two
weeks, however, it could be three or even four weeks. He noted this might be good, in terms of
allowing time to remove some of the play equipment, and determine how it comes out of the site.
He explained the contractor is also working this contract with their removals to go to another
site, and some of this project is dependent upon that. He stated, other than the 90-day
completion period, the project does not really have a time sensitive grow period.
Council Member Marty noted it was nearing the end of the season for construction. He
requested clarification regarding the amount of fill placed on the site.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the common excavation is 11,554 cubic yards of fill
which must be removed from the site. Council Member Marty noted this was a considerable
amount of fill. He explained that they might encounter some fill that would be difficult to
remove, such as asphalt or concrete.
Mayor Coughlin stated the 15 percent change order would cover a situation like this. He noted
that borings were taken, and he would lean somewhat on what was determined from that process.
Council Member Marty stated they had discussed the change orders in the past, and had agreed
as a Council to lower the authorization to 10 percent without Council approval, and he had no
problem with this.
Mayor Coughlin noted it would take an amendment by Council Member Thomason and Council
Member Marty to amend the change order amount to 10 percent.
Council Member Thomason inquired how long this would delay the project. She stated that if
they were attempting to complete the project by the end of the year, a delay could cost the City
more money. She explained that she would like to have a change brought back before the
Council if it exceeded 10 percent, however, she did not want to incur additional costs through
higher contractor fees and delays in the project.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that any amount was probably acceptable to staff. He
noted that 15 percent would represent approximately 19,000 with this project, and 10 percent
might decrease that amount to $10,000 or $12,000. He explained that if they get to the point
where they exceed that amount, and require another dollar or $10,000, the project would have
commenced by that time, and did not think it likely that the Council would deny a request for
additional funds.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if the City must mitigate the wetland at the Community Center prior to
the end of the year, in keeping with its agreement with the Community Center. Director of
Public Works Ulrich stated this was correct by the guidelines established by the Rice Creek
Watershed District.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 25
Mayor Coughlin explained that as a contractor himself, and in light of the unpredictability of the
weather, they could begin to get frost on the ground, and may actually incur additional costs in
having to break the ground up, and possibly thawing it out, if necessary. He stated he would not
want a two-week delay to result in additional expense.
Council Member Stigney stated that Director of Public Works Ulrich had adequately answered
his question regarding the change order authorization.
G. Consideration of Resolution 5365, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer
Permit for Vista Construction to Construct a Home at 6991 Pleasant View
Drive per the EDA Approved Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the subject property was one of the homes purchased by the
EDA, through the Housing Replacement Program. He stated the existing home on the site was
demolished, and the lot was cleared to make way for a new home.
Planning Associate Ericson stated one of the issues with this lot is that it is within the 100-foot
wetland setback, which would require the Council to approve a wetland buffer permit in order to
proceed. He explained that there are standards for the approval of these types of permits, and
staff has reviewed all of these standards, and is fully confident that they are met, and that the
wetland buffer permit would be appropriate in this situation.
Planning Associate Ericson stated that Resolution 5365 approves the Wetland Buffer Permit for
this property, subject to the plans provided by the developer. He noted a stipulation, which
pertains to the erosion control fence being installed along the edge of the grading to prevent any
erosion back toward the wetland.
Council Member Thomason noted Item 3 of the standards for approval, which indicates "Any
alteration shall not reduce the existing wildlife habitat value of a wetland as measure using
methods approved by the City." She inquired if there were set methods for determining this.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this issue is addressed through the terminology "Any
alteration shall not reduce the existing wildlife habitat." He explained that there is no alteration.
He noted this terminology was specific to the alteration of a wetland, for which there are
standards and criteria, however, it is not the case with this proposal.
Council Member Thomason commented that many times during her 20 years in mortgage
banking, she had seen situations where part of the land was at a lower elevation, and the building
was above grade, and does not affect anything. She explained that if the home is located in the
flood plain, the purchaser would probably have to obtain flood insurance or go through the
process with the Federal Emergency Management Association, and the responsibility would be
theirs.
Council Member Stigney inquired if there was a difference in size of the structure previously on
the property, and the structure that was proposed to be constructed, in terms of encroachment
into the wetland buffer area.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 26
Planning Associate Ericson stated the proposed structure would be approximately 175 percent
larger than the home and garage structures that were previously on the site, and it would take up
more of the buffer.
Council Member Stigney inquired if the previous structure was within the buffer.
Planning Associate Ericson stated it was. He explained that the buffer line goes up to the street,
and most of the homes on this block are within the buffer. He stated there is no way to change
anything in order to minimize the impact to the buffer, however, the extreme elevation change
would not normally constitute this area as buffer, and the impact to the wetland is minimal.
Council Member Marty commented that it appeared the entire lot was within the wetland or the
buffer. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He noted the elevation change
between the high point of the lot, and the low area, which is the wetland. He explained that as
the grade changes and comes up to the building site, there is an approximate 15-foot difference
in the elevation.
Council Member Stigney inquired if no mitigation was required. Planning Associate Ericson
stated there was not.
Council Member Stigney inquired how these homes were originally constructed within the
buffer, in that the previous requirements were more stringent in regard to the wetlands.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the majority of these homes were constructed in the 1940's
and 1950's, long before any wetland requirements were in place.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Approve Resolution No. 5365, a Resolution
Reapproving the Wetland Buffer permit for a Single-Family Dwelling at 6991 Pleasant Vie
Drive as Requested by Vista Construction; Planning Case No. 510-97.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Council Member Marty thanked Planning Associate Ericson for the maps, graphs, and
topographical information he had provided to the Council.
H. Consideration of Resolution 5354, a Resolution Denying a Wetland
Alteration Permit Request by Oakwood Land Development.
Mayor Coughlin stated that three of the Council Members had voted to deny a request for the
vacation of a drainage easement on this property, three weeks prior.
Planning Associate Ericson stated Resolution 5354 is very clear in that the Council is also
denying the request for a Wetland Alteration Permit. He stated the action of Council at their last
meeting was to deny the request to vacate the easement. He noted the applicant had also applied
for the Wetland Alteration Permit. He explained at that time, there was no resolution before the
Council for action. He explained that this matter was basically a formality, and having already
denied the vacation, there is no possibility of this request moving forward or being approved. He
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 27
stated, however, because there was an application made for the Wetland Alteration Permit, staff
and the City's legal counsel felt there should be a resolution to deny that permit as well.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Approve Resolution 5354, a Resolution Denying a
wetland Alteration Permit for Lots 17 and 18, Edgewood Square, Requested by Oakwood Land
Development; Planning Case No. 565-99.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
I. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 631, an Ordinance Rezoning
Property Located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business, to R-4,
High Density Residential.
Mayor Coughlin inquired, in light of their relationship, if there would be any opposition among
the Council to consider Item N in conjunction with Item I.
Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to consider Item N, in conjunction
with Item I.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this was the ordinance before the Council at their previous
meeting, which approves the rezoning of the property located at 2670 County Road I, from B-2,
Limited Business, to R-4, High Density Residential. He explained that this is in conjunction
with the request of MSP Real Estate to construct a senior residential facility at this location. He
stated there are no changes from the First Reading of the ordinance.
MOTION./SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the Second Reading and Adoption of
Ordinance No. 631, 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.
1. Roll Call: Coughlin, Marty, Stigney, and Thomason.
Not Present: Quick.
2. Vote
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
J. Consideration of Resolution 5367, a Resolution Setting the Date for the Truth
in Taxation Public Hearing and the Associated Maximum Property Tax Levy
for the Year 2000.
Finance Director Kessel explained Resolution 5367 contains three items for consideration. He
stated Item 1 is the General Fund Levy, and as it was originally presented, the General Fund
includes the Fire Bonds in the amount of$73, 755.00. He stated this is the City's share of the
Fire Bonds that are paid to the city of Blaine. He noted the remainder of the General Fund is
$3,759,257.00, and explained that this was the preliminary amount between that date, and the
adoption of the final levy and budget. He added that in December that number could change.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 28
Finance Director Kessel stated Item 2 is the maximum amount the state allows the City to levy.
He stated the Fire Bonds are $73,755.00, and the balance of the Property Tax General Fund is
$1,695,897.00, which is the maximum levy, and represents a .93 percent increase. He explained
that when the Fire Bond levy decreases, the total levy for the City is approximately .5 percent.
He noted that this number can decrease, however, it can not exceed that amount if adopted as is.
Finance Director Kessel stated Item 3 is the requirement to set a Truth in Taxation meeting date.
He explained that the date of the meeting indicated in the Resolution is December 6, at 6:00 p.m.
He noted there were additional available dates, should there be a conflict with the date presented.
He stated the dates that were not allowed for the scheduling of this meeting were also indicated.
He recommended the Council schedule a date in December, if they do not wish to hold the
meeting on December 6.
City Administrator Whiting stated December 6 falls upon a normal Work Session day. He stated
he would be attending the National League of Cities conference the week prior to this date,
however, he was certain he would be back in time for the meeting. He stated he was not aware
how much preparation was necessary for this meeting, however, in light of the Work Session that
date, he did not know how much preparation time they would have.
City Administrator Whiting noted there was also a Vikings game scheduled for that evening, if
they were looking for attendance.
Mayor Coughlin stated the options would be one week earlier, with a spill over date, or a week
later, although this might conflict with people's vacation plans.
Council Member Thomason suggested they let the December 6 date stand.
Mayor Coughlin noted that one resident traditionally attempts to attend most meetings, and if a
continuation of the meeting is necessary, they may wish to incorporate it to 7:00, and hold the
actual Council Meeting of that date, after those proceedings.
Finance Director Kessel advised that the continuation meeting is not supposed to be held during
a regularly scheduled Council Meeting.
Mayor Coughlin stated they could hold the Council meeting immediately following the Truth in
Taxation meeting.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the consensus of the Council to hold the Truth in Taxation
meeting on at 6:00 p.m. on December 6, and if it requires to be continued, the continuation be
held at 7:00 p.m. on December 13.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Set the Truth in Taxation Hearing for 6:00 p.m. on
December 6, 1999, in the Council Chambers, and Should it Need to be Continued, the
Continuation be held at 7:00 p.m. on December 13, 1999, in the Council Chambers, and to
Include the Consideration of Items 1 and 2 of the Resolution as well.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 29
Council Member Stigney stated he did not have a copy of the resolution, and inquired if the
information provided was strictly preliminary. Finance Director Kessel stated this was correct.
He explained the amounts stated could not be exceeded, however, they could be amended
downwards.
K. Consideration of Resolution 5368, a Resolution Authorizing an Increase in
the City's Property Tax Rate for the Year 2000.
Finance Director Kessel provided the Council with a copy of a facsimile from Ramsey County
which lists the preliminary tax capacity and market values for payable 1999 and 2000 taxes. He
explained the total tax capacity value for local rates has increased by $245,192.00 for pay in
2000, versus pay in 1999. He explained that this represents an approximate increase of 5 percent
in the City's tax capacity.
Finance Director Kessel stated the City's levy limit is less than one percent based upon the
formula that the state utilizes. He explained this represents a tax rate increase. He explained that
although the denominator is increasing more than the numerator, the rate would actually go
down, however, the method the state uses to calculate the property tax increase indicates that it
has increased.
Finance Director Kessel explained that in order to levy the maximum levy, the state requires
there be a resolution on the books authorizing an increase in the tax rate as they define it, and this
is required to be completed prior to October 20.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Approve Resolution No. 5368, a Resolution
Authorizing a property Tax Rate Increase for the Year 2000, Pursuant to Stated Statutes.
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Council Member Thomason was not present for the vote.
L. Consideration of Ordinance 641, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise
Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Utility Companies for the Operation of the
Utility with the City.
L.1. First Reading of Said Ordinance
Finance Director Kessel stated this was the First Reading of Ordinance 641. He explained that
this ordinance was the same as the ordinance approved the previous year, with the exception of
the addition of Reliant Energy/Minnegasco. He stated the item that should be considered prior to
Second Reading and adoption of this ordinance is Subdivision 3, the amount of the Franchise
Agreement. He stated there has been some discussion in the past regarding lowering the feet to
two percent, and also discussion regarding increasing the fee and earmarking a portion of it to a
street reconstruction fund. He explained that the language currently indicates the Franchise
Agreement of the sales of electric and natural gas within the City will be 2.5 percent, which is
the present rate.
Finance Director Kessel stated another item for consideration is Section 8, the Sunset Clause,
which indicates the ordinance will automatically sunset on December 31, 2001. He explained
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 30
when the ordinance was originally adopted, it was for a five-year term, and in the last two years
it has been one-year terms. He advised if some of the money was to be earmarked towards a
street reconstruction fund, he would recommend that the term be a minimum of three to five
years.
Finance Director Kessel stated the ordinance has not been reviewed by the City Attorney, Reliant
Energy/Minnegasco, or Northern States Power, however, staff will submit a copy to them if the
Council is in favor of moving forward. He stated it was preferable to adopt the ordinance in
October to provide the notice that is required under the Franchise Agreements to both Reliant
Energy/Minnegasco and Northern States Power to provide they have it on their books prior to
January 1, 2000.
Council Member Marty stated he had discussed this matter with City Administrator Whiting, that
date. He noted the ordinance indicates Northern States Power (the Company) under Subdivision
2, and only contains mentions of Minnegasco. He inquired if this was sufficient to identify the
parties to the Franchise Agreement.
Finance Director Kessel explained that in Subdivision 2, Northern States Power Company is
defined as (the Company), and Reliant Energy Minnegasco is defined as (Minnegasco).
City Attorney Long explained they could insert Northern States Power wherever (the Company)
is indicated. Finance Director Kessel stated if the Council so desired, the ordinance could be
amended to reflect that. He reiterated that the language had not been reviewed in detail by the
City Attorney, and that prior to its adoption, this would be done.
Council Member Marty noted they were in the process of implementing a new street policy to
reduce the burden of assessment to the residents by 50 percent. He commented that through the
Franchise Fee, they might be able to earmark monies to the Streets Policies Committee, to build
a fund. He suggested the ordinance be adopted for a three-year term, after which they can revisit
the issue in 2002.
Council Member Stigney commented that there has been discussion regarding setting up a fund
and utilizing a franchise fee, or increasing a franchise fee, to offset the burden of street
reconstruction of properties. He stated he was opposed to increasing any franchise fee. He
explained that the money was there, and he felt they should be allocating some of the money that
is there on the present percentage for the streets, and begin to reduce the amount they are
collecting from the taxpayers in the General Fund, which is $240,00 to $260,000.
Finance Director Kessel stated at 2.5 percent of this is approximately $200,000.
Council Member Stigney stated this was an additional flow of money that is coming into the
City, which in his opinion, should be utilized to directly offset what is being taxed from the
residents to the General Fund. He explained that they should reduce what they were asking the
residents to pay out of the General Fund, rather than increasing a franchise fee. He reiterated he
was opposed to increasing the franchise fee, and that he would like to see it reduced, or reduced
off of the General Fund.
Council Member Stigney stated the sunset clause was previously indicated as a two-year term,
and Council Member Marty requested three years. He stated he would like to see the franchise
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 31
sunset clauses are for terms of one year, because Council Members change quite often, and he
did not like the idea of one Council locking another Council into a decision they did not make.
He stated they should let the people on the Council make that decision every December 31, in
time for whatever action is needed.
Mayor Coughlin stated this was the First Reading of this ordinance, and it would be subject to
further discussion during at least one Work Session. He explained they could, as a formality
pass the First Reading as written, and then add whatever verbiage they would like at a future
date, through determination at a Work Session.
Council Member Thomason stated she would move approval of the First Reading with the
discussion at a future Work Session,prior to the Second Reading.
Council Member Stigney stated he second the motion with the stipulation that they address the
views and comment brought forward at the meeting.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Approve the First Reading of Ordinance 641, an
Ordinance implementing a Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Utility Companies for the
Operation of the utility Within the City of Mound View, with Discussion at a Future Work
Session Prior to the Second Reading, and with the Views and Comments Brought Forward at the
Meeting to be Addressed.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
L.2. Set Date for public hearing and second reading of said Ordinance for 7:15
p.m., on October 11, 1999
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Thomason. To Set Date for Public Hearing and Second Reading
of Said Ordinance for 7:15 p.m., on October 11, 1999.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
M. Approval of Applicant Hiring for Assistant to the City Administrator
Position.
City Administrator Whiting stated he had come to an agreement regarding the applicant whom
he believed to be the top candidate for the Assistant to the City Administrator position, that
afternoon. He stated he had prepared a memorandum in that regard, which indicates as follows:
"I received 30 applications for the position of the Assistant to the City Administrator. I
interviewed five of these individuals. I felt three candidates in particular stood out, and I am
recommending Givonna Reed to fill the position. Ms. Reed is currently the Director of
Community Initiatives for Summit Academy, OIC, and previously worked for two years with the
City of Minneapolis as Assistant to the City Council Vice President, which is one of the Council
Members. She has a Masters degree from Hamline University, and also worked as a research
assistant for the Minnesota Senate.
I found Ms. Reed to be confident and articulate, with a career interest in city government, hence
her interest in the position, and I feel that she will make an excellent addition to the City staff. I
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 32
also contacted several of her references, some of which are familiar to me, and found them to be
enthusiastic about her and her abilities.
Ms. Reed and I have discussed employment terms, and reached agreement on the following
items today. Her starting pay would be at Step 2, which is $39,397 of the pay plan for this
position, with an adjustment to Step 3, which is $42,966, in six months, pending a satisfactory
performance evaluation. Succeeding Steps would proceed annually. She will also be granted
five days of vacation banked, and six days of sick leave banked, upon starting. These two
conditions in the Step 2 start reflect an acknowledgement of Ms. Reed's current work history and
pay level, and a level currently commensurate with this position is the position Step 4. All of the
personnel policies would apply normally. Her start work date would be October 4. These terms
are conditional upon Council approval, only after which she will notify her employer.
I think the Council will be as equally pleased as I am with Ms. Reed and her abilities. Her work
suggests a strong commitment to community issues, and the ability to work with the public in a
forthright manner in addressing the work before her. I again recommend her strongly for the
position and ask approval of her hiring with the conditions outlined above."
Council Member Marty noted the starting pay would be Step 2, at $39,397. He inquired if Ms.
Reed would be taking a pay cut to accept this position.
City Administrator Whiting stated that Ms. Reed has an interest in city government
administration, and views this position as gaining a foothold into the profession, so that she can
pursue it as a career. He stated for that reason she is willing to consider less than what she is
presently earning, however, at some point, the money does become an issue. He stated he had
looked at starting at Step 2, with the normal process through the Steps. He stated he had also
discussed the pay plan adjustment at the first of the year, pending Council approval, which
helped make the offer a bit more attractive.
City Administrator Whiting explained in regard to the days of vacation and sick leave, he had
found quite often when hiring administrative staff, that they are currently receiving something
either in excess of that, or are looking for that. He stated if Ms. Reed does not get sick, this
would not present a problem, and the five days of vacation is budgeted, and he did not think this
would represent a burden to the City.
Council Member Marty stated he knew another of the candidates, and found that individual to be
quite capable as well. He stated if City Administrator Whiting felt this to be his best choice, he
would be in favor of that.
Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the Step 5 salary at this level.
City Administrator Whiting stated he was uncertain, however, he believed it was approximately
$46,000. He stated this would change by the time the applicant attained this level.
Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the nature of Ms. Reed's Masters Degree.
City Administrator Whiting stated this was in Public Administration.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 33
Council Member Stigney stated they were duplicating exactly what they did with the former
Assistant to the City Administrator, Cari Schmidt. He stated they were hiring someone with a
Masters Degree who wanted to get their foot in the door, gain some experience, and then move
on. He noted she was willing to take a pay cut in order to do so, however, within a very short
time, she would be back to her present pay level, and would now have experience to move on.
He stated, in his opinion, this is not the type of people they should be hiring into the City. He
stated he opposed this particular candidate, in that he did not see any long-term benefit for the
City. He reiterated he did not think this was the type of candidate to hire.
Council Member Stigney stated he believed they should hire people pursuant to the employment
policies, rather than waiving the policies every time they desired to hire a new applicant. He
stated there were 30 applicants, and he felt that some of the applicants would be able to work
within the City's original policies, in regard to vacation and sick leave.
Council Member Stigney inquired if City Administrator Whiting was aware of his reservations
regarding whether or not the position is necessary. He stated perhaps if the City Administrator
Whiting would take more interest and time in handling the internal administration of the City, he
would not think this position would really be required. He stated if it were required, he believed
they should be looking at the staffing options of how to handle it. He explained that there is
presently a secretary, and that position could be an elevated secretarial position that could handle
the secretarial duties as well as assist the City Administrator with the administrative duties, and
incorporate these into one individual.
Council Member Stigney stated that if they were going to maintain the staffing of a secretary and
an assistant, the assistant position should be handled on an intern basis. He explained that the
intern would move one, however, would be very interested in learning, and would come in at a
lower rate, and work very hard for it. He stated, in his view, the proposed candidate would come
in at a high rate of salary, which would increase very shortly, and move on. He stated he did not
support this item.
Mayor Coughlin stated he thought it unfair to cast dispersions on the City Administrator in terms
of what he does or does not do. He stated he worked with City Administrator Whiting very
closely as the Mayor, and attended many of the same functions both within the City, and outside
the boundaries of the City, and he thought these statements could be construed as damaging to
his character.
Council Member Stigney stated this was his opinion, and that City Administrator Whiting is
aware of his opinion. He explained that he did not state City Administrator Whiting did not
require anybody to assist him, and if in fact he does require an assistant, it should be someone
who comes in to assist him. He stated to his knowledge there were City Administrators in the
past who were able to effectively run the City without any assistance. He commented that now
that they have all of the technology and the prices and fees are higher, they can not operate
without an assistant. He stated he questioned this.
Mayor Coughlin remarked that they used to run around in horse and buggies, too. He stated that
things change. He explained the demands on city government, both from rules and regulations
from above, and demands from the residents for further goods and services, continue to rise, and
those demands have to be met. He stated, although Council Member Stigney's opinion is just,
stating it in a public manner, as part of the official record of the City, he felt was inappropriate.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 34
Council Member Stigney stated he disagreed. He stated this was a public forum, he was a public
Council Member, and this was the discussion for determining whether or not a position is
necessary, and the type of person being considered.
Mayor Coughlin stated that this was very nearly approaching a personnel matter.
Council Member Stigney stated he was discussing whether or not a City Administrator function
requires an assistant, and if so, what other methods of staffing might be able to handle it. He
added if there were none, they should consider an intern position.
Mayor Coughlin commented that Ms. Reed, contrary to what was indicated, would not only be
taking a pay cut, but would have to enter into her third year of employment with the City of
Mounds View to attain what she is currently earning. He stated she would not be coming into
the City and immediately earning a high salary. He explained that Ms. Reed would actually be
earning less than former Assistant to the City Administrator Schmidt did in the same position,
which represents a savings to the City.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the term and salary of Step 1.
City Administrator Whiting stated this was typically a six month term, and the salary is five
percent lower than the stated Step 2.
Council Member Marty stated, therefore, they would be starting Ms. Reed at the six-month
period. He commented that if she were in this for the money, she would not accept this job and
take a pay cut. He stated this proposal would obtain someone for the City with a Masters Degree
in Public Administration, and accelerate her pay level by six months.
Council Member Stigney stated this would add another the burden to the taxpayers of the City,
which he does not feel is justified. He stated that if someone is needed, they should be looking at
a different person to fill this position. He stated he had provided options of how to do this. He
stated an individual who indicates they want to get some experience to move on is the wrong
candidate. He reiterated that an intern or a restructuring of the secretarial position would be
appropriate.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would not want to "invest in stock for gold watches" for any
government employee whether with the City of Minneapolis or Mounds View.
Council Member Stigney stated they have a City Administrator, and are not hiring someone to
run the City. He stated they were hiring someone who assists in running the City.
Council Member Thomason stated Council Member Stigney had brought forward some valid
concerns. She stated in regard to someone coming in and using the system in order to get their
"feet wet, " having been in management and a supervisor for approximately 20 years, that is the
name of the game, and is why you would accept a position. She stated the average length of
employment of a person coming in to a position is approximately three years, because they do
want to gain experience and then move on.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 35
Council Member Thomason stated she had come into a position as an assistant to her manager,
when she was in mortgage banking. She explained that if she was not promoted within a year
and a half, she was going to move on, because the point was to become a manager herself She
explained she had done this several times, adding that when you get into upper management, this
is the name of the game.
Council Member Thomason stated that this would be an ideal position to fill with an intern, a
secretary or an assistant, however, in today's work force this is par for the course. She stated
Ms. Reed has indicated she would like to make a commitment, and it will be three years before
she will be earning her currently salary.
Council Member Stigney stated this was his point in regard to an intern, because the person
would not be staying with the City regardless. He stated that if they are looking for someone to
remain with the City, they should consider elevating a secretarial position to perform both
functions, which would probably provide for a long-term person.
Mayor Coughlin stated that essentially they were not just hiring a"warm body," they were hiring
a collection of skills and abilities. He explained that if you want a particular level of skills and
abilities you have to pay for it.
City Administrator Whiting stated he certainly took all the comments into consideration. He
stated Council Member Stigney was correct in that he is aware of his position on this matter. He
stated they had discussed this on several occasions, and certainly disagreed. He stated it was not
so much that he disagreed with Council Member Stigney's point of view, but that he was
attempting to exercise his judgement in regard to what is best for the City and the City Council,
not just himself He stated he believed that by investing in good people, based upon their
abilities, the return you receive for the investment makes sense. He stated that if the employee is
good enough to move on in time that is acceptable. He explained that not everyone is motivated
by finances, and most people who enter the public service field are not motivated by the money
that they make.
City Administrator Whiting stated he believed that the individual he has indicated will do a very
good job. He stated regardless of how the vote goes, if the hiring is done, he would certainly
hope and request that the Council would support the individual once that position is in place,
regardless of the non-personal nature of the viewpoints expressed. He stated those matters were
always up for scrutiny, however, he believed the intentions were honorable. He stated that some
of the issues brought forward could certainly be discussed, whether they are in regard to where
his time is spent, or where the Council wants him to spend his time, and he is open to that
discussion at any time.
Council Member Stigney stated his assumption is that this salary range is based once again on
Stanton Survey of cities up to 25,000 population.
City Administrator Whiting stated this is not entirely correct. He explained that in general, that
is still the City's policy, however, as he has indicated in the past, there are ways of dealing with
this if that policy is to be changed. He stated he is presently faced with the problem of having no
one to assist him in making those changes, and this is one of the duties that this position would
perform. He stated he was open to suggestions in regard to the pay plan. He stated that if they
could come to some agreed upon methodology for determining a pay plan, and the size and
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 36
scope of City personnel he would be happy to have that done. He stated neither the Council nor
himself wanted to go through this every single time they consider some type of a personnel issue.
Council Member Stigney stated they already have a suggested list and policy in place for how to
accomplish this using tax capacity, however, they don't seem to be able to get the matter
addressed or approved. He stated he hoped that during the next Work Session they could address
the issue, and finally approve a method that will have some meaning.
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Marty. To Approve the Offering of the Position to Givonna
Reed for the Terms Stipulated in City Administrator Whiting's Memorandum Dated September
13, 1999.
Ayes—3 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin requested the City Administrator contact Ms. Reed at his earliest convenience.
N. Consideration of Resolution 5345, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use
Permit for an Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility at 2670 County
Road I, requested by MSP Real Estate.
Planning Associate Ericson stated at the last meeting of the City Council, on August 23, in
conjunction with the First Reading of the rezoning ordinance, a public hearing was held for the
Conditional Use Permit request by MSP Real Estate, and discussion took place regarding this
particular use.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff was directed to draft a resolution of approval, Resolution
5345, which is presently before the Council. He explained that the criteria for approving a
Conditional Use Permit for this use are met and satisfied.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has added stipulations which include that the developer
record the Conditional Use Permit with the County, and the applicant apply for and receive
approval of a Development Review for this project. He noted that the use would be allowed to
display facility identification signage, which would be reviewed at the Development Review
stage, and is not to exceed 32 square feet, and not to include any incidental or directional
signage.
Planning Associate Ericson indicated that all state laws and statutes governing such uses would
be adhered to, and the facility will be secured at all times to protect the health and safety of the
facility residents. He added that the use would be subject to parking requirements equivalent to
one space for every three beds, and one stall for every employee on the shift having he most
personnel present, as was discussed in the code amendment ordinance considered earlier in the
evening.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No. 5345, a Resolution
Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility to be
Located at 2670 County Road I; Planning Case No. 559-99.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 37
O. Consideration of Resolution 5372, Authorizing Interfund Advance from
Special Projects to Golf Course.
This Item was removed at the request of the Mayor, and discussed during the consideration of
Reports.
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, September 20, 1999 —6:00 P.M.
Monday, September 27, 1999—4:30 to 7:00 P.M.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 27, 1999—7:00 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Adjourn the City Council Meeting at 9.59 p.m.
Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Trish Pearson
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
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:
13734 through 13745 in the amount of$ 32,419.11
101189 through 101310 in the amount of$ 399,894.42
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED: $ 432,313.53
and has found said claims to be just and correct;
It was moved that the City Council of Mounds View hereby approved the attached
list of claims dated 09/28/99 by the vote ayes nayes
Mayor
Clerk-Administrator
Date: 09/23/1999 Time: 15:56:42 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 #: (L) 1256, 1260, 1262,
1265, 1278, 1280
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
13734 Western Bank Replenish Petty Cash 4350 238.51
Total for Chk 13734 238.51*
13735 ICMA Retirement Trust ICMA for 09/23/99 4,019.67
Total for Chk 13735 4,019.67*
13736 Edward Jones Money Market for 09/23/9 125.00
Total for Chk 13736 125.00*
13737 Minnesota Benefit Asso MN Benefit for September 472.38
Total for Chk 13737 472.38*
13738 Minnesota Child Suppor Child Support for 09/23/ 690.90
Total for Chk 13738 690.90*
13739 MINNESOTA STATE RETIRE MN State and MN Mutual f 432.69
Total for Chk 13739 432.69*
13740 Public Employees Insur Health Ins. for October 14,847.93
Total for Chk 13740 14,847.93*
13741 Public Employees Retir Defined contribution for 112.50
Total for Chk 13741 112.50*
13742 Public Employees Retir PERA for 09/23/99 11,084.53
Total for Chk 13742 11,084.53*
13743 Sunrise United Methodi Sunrise for September 14.00
Total for Chk 13743 14.00*
13744 United Way of the St. United Way for 3rd Quart 261.00
Total for Chk 13744 261.00*
13745 Western Bank Savings for 09/23/99 120.00
Total for Chk 13745 120.00*
Date: 09/23/1999 Time: 15:56:42 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 2
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101189 Driver & Vehicle Servi Title Registration Fee 4465 1,782.33
Total for Chk 101189 1,782.33*
101190 Northern States Power 2450 Bronson Dr.-Booster 4823 2,080.74
Total for Chk 101190 2,080.74*
101191 Western Bank Savings Bond-Amundson 4420 50.00
Total for Chk 101191 50.00*
101193 M.C.P.A. Fall Crime Prev. Confere 4200 40.00
Total for Chk 101193 40.00*
101194 Driver & Vehicle Servi Title Registration Fee 4465 1,451.33
Total for Chk 101194 1,451.33*
101195 Western Excavating & P Right of Way Deposit Ref 500.00
Total for Chk 101195 500.00*
101196 Elaine Forsberg Meter Refund-8081 Red Oa 30.00
Total for Chk 101196 30.00*
101197 Kathy Hill Meter Deposit-2610 Clear 40.00
Total for Chk 101197 40.00*
101198 Jack Frier Meter Refund-2756 Ardan 40.00
Total for Chk 101198 40.00*
101199 Action Press, Inc. Printing-Fall Clean-Up B 4420 1,536.69
Total for Chk 101199 1,536.69*
101200 Action Systems Set-up & programmed addi 4160 1,764.13
Total for Chk 101200 1,764.13*
101201 All City Elevator, Inc Elevator Service 4160 222.75
Total for Chk 101201 222.75*
101202 American Engineering T Edgewood Dr.Realignment 4470 166.00
Total for Chk 101202 166.00*
101203 Anchor Paper Co. Paper Plates, Cups 4460 583.89
Total for Chk 101203 583.89*
101204 American Office Produc Folders, Labels, Organiz 4160 326.29
Total for Chk 101204 326.29*
101205 Earl F. Andersen & Ass Signs 4360 118.47
Total for Chk 101205 118.47*
101207 Bankcard Center Snyders 4350 5,270.02
Total for Chk 101207 5,270.02*
Date: 09/23/1999 Time: 15:56:42 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 3
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101208 Batteries Plus Batteries 4900 100.09
Total for Chk 101208 100.09*
101209 Beisswengers Muriatic Acid 4823 178.35
Total for Chk 101209 178.35*
101210 Biffs, Inc. Groveland Park 4360 1,153.34
Total for Chk 101210 1,153.34*
101211 City of Blaine 2850 82nd Lane N.E. 4901 107.89
Total for Chk 101211 107.89*
101212 Bob's Personal Coffee Coffee 4160 42.24
Total for Chk 101212 42.24*
101213 Briggs & Morgan Mermaid Redevelopment Pr 3,074.00
Total for Chk 101213 3,074.00*
101214 Brighton Veterinary Ho Veterinary Services 4200 243.50
Total for Chk 101214 243.50*
101215 Browning Ferris Indust Medical Waste 4200 38.96
Total for Chk 101215 38.96*
101216 Bumper to Bumper Car Parts 4462 125.90
Total for Chk 101216 125.90*
101217 Capitol Beverage Sales Beverages 4901 182.25
Total for Chk 101217 182.25*
101218 Classic Touch, Inc. Car Washes 4200 72.42
Total for Chk 101218 72.42*
101219 Central Data Supply Co Printer Toner 4160 1,308.52
Total for Chk 101219 1,308.52*
101220 Central Power Distribu Screw, Retainer, Spring 4360 6.91
Total for Chk 101220 6.91*
101221 Cintas - 748 Uniform Rental 4823 516.99
Total for Chk 101221 516.99*
101222 Commonwealth Land Titl Community Center Phase I 4650 107,653.72
Total for Chk 101222 107,653.72*
101223 Construction Bulletin Wetland Mitigation Ad 4360 265.35
Total for Chk 101223 265.35*
101224 Cottens, Inc. Fusetap 4462 39.12
Total for Chk 101224 39.12*
Date: 09/23/1999 Time: 15:56:42 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 4
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101225 Crysteel Dist., Inc. Ultra Steps Black 4472 350.34
Total for Chk 101225 350.34*
101226 Cushman Motor Company, Aereator Parts, Beer Car 4900 241.76
Total for Chk 101226 241.76*
101227 Cy's Uniforms Uniforms 4200 803.85
Total for Chk 101227 803.85*
101228 Davies Water Equipment PVC Pipe 4350 137.87
Total for Chk 101228 137.87*
101229 Diamond Vogel White Field Marking 4367 572.45
Total for Chk 101229 572.45*
101230 East Side Beverage Co. Beverages 4901 145.80
Total for Chk 101230 145.80*
101231 Ebert Construction Final billing-City Hall 4160 16,141.00
Total for Chk 101231 16,141.00*
101232 Elegant Thymes Caterin Moy Wedding 2,767.02
Total for Chk 101232 2,767.02*
101233 Ess Brothers & Sons, I R-1740-B 4470 319.50
Total for Chk 101233 319.50*
101234 Fantasi International Golf Merchandise 4901 100.84
Total for Chk 101234 100.84*
101235 Five D Limited Gasoline 4200 554.23
Total for Chk 101235 554.23*
101236 Focus News Legal Notice-Ord.#639 4160 236.95
Total for Chk 101236 236.95*
101237 Friendly Chevrolet GEO Switch 4462 12.18
Total for Chk 101237 12.18*
101238 Gallaghers Service, In Groveland Park-Timbers p 4360 29.25
Total for Chk 101238 29.25*
101239 Goodyear Brad Ragan, I Tires 4360 104.31
Total for Chk 101239 104.31*
101240 Gopher State One-Call, 121 Calls 4825 211.75
Total for Chk 101240 211.75*
101241 W. W. Grainger Solder 4462 11.31
Total for Chk 101241 11.31*
Date: 09/23/1999 Time: 15:56:42 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 5
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101242 Great Lakes Weather Se Storm Warning Service 4472 399.00
Total for Chk 101242 399.00*
101243 Green Tree Vendor Sery Lease Payment 4460 153.28
Total for Chk 101243 153.28*
101244 H & B Construction Republic Lockers 4650 3,148.00
Total for Chk 101244 3,148.00*
101245 Hawkins Chemical Chlorine 4825 638.20
Total for Chk 101245 638.20*
101246 Home Depot Commercial Garden Fence 4900 24.31
Total for Chk 101246 24.31*
101247 Hornungs Pro Golf Sale Ball Wash Detergent, Cad 4900 308.07
Total for Chk 101247 308.07*
101248 Hughes & Costello Statement for Legal Sery 4200 3,500.00
Total for Chk 101248 3,500.00*
101249 Independent Delivery S Delivery-Mounds View Mat 4350 267.85
Total for Chk 101249 267.85*
101250 J.G.C., Inc. Counter Shutter 4350 788.00
Total for Chk 101250 788.00*
101251 John's Auto Parts Auto Part 4465 10.65
Total for Chk 101251 10.65*
101252 Judd Supply Company Nuts, Junction Box,Temfl 4460 31.15
Total for Chk 101252 31.15*
101253 Kath Fuel Oil Service Fuel 4900 537.72
Total for Chk 101253 537.72*
101254 Kath Auto Parts & Mach 4465 378.58
Total for Chk 101254 378.58*
101255 Kennedy & Graven Administration, Public W 4160 16,439.24
Total for Chk 101255 16,439.24*
101256 Kustom Signals, Inc. Talon 4200 2,192.45
Total for Chk 101256 2,192.45*
101257 Labor Relations Associ Grievance Arbitration 4160 760.50
Total for Chk 101257 760.50*
101259 League of Minnesota Ci Workers' Comp. Plan 4902 10,282.00
Total for Chk 101259 10,282.00*
Date: 09/23/1999 Time: 15:56:42 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 6
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101260 Lesco, Inc. Fertilizer 4360 5,769.52
Total for Chk 101260 5,769.52*
101261 M R Sign Road Signs 4475 1,076.55
Total for Chk 101261 1,076.55*
101262 M.T.I. Distributing Co Starter Switch, Key 4900 13,440.60
Total for Chk 101262 13,440.60*
101263 Masys Corporation ENFORS Maintenance 4200 623.69
Total for Chk 101263 623.69*
101264 Menards Pathway Maintenance 4470 88.05
Total for Chk 101264 88.05*
101265 Metro Legal Services, Delivery to B.Long 4100 22.00
Total for Chk 101265 22.00*
101266 MIDC Catch Basin, Grate, Outl 4350 107.96
Total for Chk 101266 107.96*
101267 Metrocall State Display Service 4415 59.97
Total for Chk 101267 59.97*
101268 Metro Council Environm Wastewater Service 4823 56,317.92
Total for Chk 101268 56,317.92*
101269 Midwest Asphalt Corpor Asphalt 4470 519.09
Total for Chk 101269 519.09*
101270 Midwest Coca/Cola Beverages 4901 448.49
Total for Chk 101270 448.49*
101271 Midwest Specialty Sale Detent Kit, Blades 4360 370.78
Total for Chk 101271 370.78*
101272 Miller Tree & Landscap Tree Removal 4380 3,572.60
Total for Chk 101272 3,572.60*
101273 Minnesota Chiefs of Po Fall Symposium-Clark 4200 300.00
Total for Chk 101273 300.00*
101274 Mita Financial Service Copier Payment 4200 102.99
Total for Chk 101274 102.99*
101275 Mounds View, City of Utilities-2105 Hillview 340.00
Total for Chk 101275 340.00*
101276 Multicare Associates, MRO-Clark 4200 10.00
Total for Chk 101276 10.00*
Date: 09/23/1999 Time: 15:56:42 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 7
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101277 National League of Cit Membership 4100 1,088.00
Total for Chk 101277 1,088.00*
101278 National Pen Corporati Golf Merchandise 4901 131.87
Total for Chk 101278 131.87*
101279 North Country Ford Car Part 4462 87.75
Total for Chk 101279 87.75*
101280 Northern Tool & Equipm Pliers, Mirror 4900 12.76
Total for Chk 101280 12.76*
101281 Northern Sanitary Supp Cleaning Supplies 4350 501.30
Total for Chk 101281 501.30*
101282 Northern States Power 8290 Coral Sea-Sign 4901 2,290.04
Total for Chk 101282 2,290.04*
101283 Northland Business Sys Equipment Repair 4200 59.33
Total for Chk 101283 59.33*
101284 Northwest Family YMCA Management Contract 4350 39,270.00
Total for Chk 101284 39,270.00*
101285 Nott Company Equipment 4360 23.22
Total for Chk 101285 23.22*
101286 Nystrom Publishing Co. Printing-Newsletter 4160 2,237.26
Total for Chk 101286 2,237.26*
101287 Office Depot Tags, Files, Tape, Frame 4900 36.01
Total for Chk 101287 36.01*
101288 Orkin Exterminating Co Exterminating 4160 88.29
Total for Chk 101288 88.29*
101289 Peterson Environmental BGC Hydro Study 4900 3,074.86
Total for Chk 101289 3,074.86*
101290 Pitney Bowes Postage Machine 4160 843.00
Total for Chk 101290 843.00*
101291 Pomp's Tire Service, I Aereator Tires 4900 101.38
Total for Chk 101291 101.38*
101292 Printmaster Printing Skytone Paper 4160 17.04
Total for Chk 101292 17.04*
101293 Radco Industries, Inc. Bed Mat, Interceptor 4465 107.87
Total for Chk 101293 107.87*
Date: 09/23/1999 Time: 15:56:42 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 8
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101294 Ramsey County Back Taxes-Groveland Roa 4360 4,406.46
Total for Chk 101294 4,406.46*
101295 Roberts Beverage Servi Moy Wedding 1,019.05
Total for Chk 101295 1,019.05*
101296 Safety Kleen Corporati Parts cleaning fluid 4460 129.40
Total for Chk 101296 129.40*
101297 Schwaab, Inc. Notary Stamps 4200 100.29
Total for Chk 101297 100.29*
101298 Short-Elliott & Hendri Booster Station Improvem 4823 24,403.49
Total for Chk 101298 24,403.49*
101299 Shred-It Shredding 4200 86.58
Total for Chk 101299 86.58*
101300 Sign-A-Rama, U.S.A. Sign Post 4350 159.75
Total for Chk 101300 159.75*
101301 Spring Lake Park Fire Fire Inspection Service- 4210 9,484.67
Total for Chk 101301 9,484.67*
101302 Stringer Business Syst Toner 4350 195.26
Total for Chk 101302 195.26*
101303 Superior Ford Ford Truck 4823 21,959.00
Total for Chk 101303 21,959.00*
101304 Sysco Food Services of Hot Dogs, Buns, Chips, C 4901 182.84
Total for Chk 101304 182.84*
101305 T.S.E., Inc. Janitorial Service-Comm. 4350 280.00
Total for Chk 101305 280.00*
101306 Time Saver Planning Comm.Mtg.9/01 4180 721.25
Total for Chk 101306 721.25*
101307 U. S. Filter Distribut MIU Phones, Meters, Brac 4823 3,621.00
Total for Chk 101307 3,621.00*
101308 U. S. West E07-1580 4823 1,403.47
Total for Chk 101308 1,403.47*
101309 U. S. West Communicati 780-1908 4360 61.29
Total for Chk 101309 61.29*
101310 Unitog Rental Services Uniform Rental 4900 51.06
Total for Chk 101310 51.06*
Date: 09/23/1999 Time: 15:56:42 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 9
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101311 Viking Electric Incand.Clear 4350 33.36
Total for Chk 101311 33.36*
101312 Wager's, Inc Maintenance Contract 4823 27.00
Total for Chk 101312 27.00*
101313 Walters Recycling & Re Rubbish Pickup-Lakeside 4350 111.15
Total for Chk 101313 111.15*
101314 Weber Electric Wire Back Boards & Curta 4350 3,283.00
Total for Chk 101314 3,283.00*
101315 West Coast Publishers Management Course-Jopke 4180 325.00
Total for Chk 101315 325.00*
101316 Western Bank Savings Bond-Battmer 4420 100.00
Total for Chk 101316 100.00*
101317 Wold Architects & Engi Misc. Projects 4160 644.68
Total for Chk 101317 644.68*
101318 Zep Manufacturing Co. Florstrip Pads,Cleaner,T 4460 253.58
Total for Chk 101318 253.58*
Grand Total 432,313.53*
CITY OF
Phone: (612)717-4000
1111,
-A• �� Fax: (612)784-3462
Ar
S
Ogress • partnerS"
MEMO
To: City Council
From: Kitty Hickok
Regarding: Restaurant License for Subway
Subway, located at 2546 Highway 10, has new owners, and are renewing the license to
operate in their names. The new owners names are Joy N.S. O'Bresky and Catherine
Roers.
Application for License has been checked. All necessary documents are attached.
Recommendation:
To approve the Restaurant License for Subway.
PRINTED WITH 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 tem
re SOY INK TM
recycled paper
Equal Opportunity Employer
Item No.
Meeting Date: September 27. 1999
Staff Report No.
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
Mounds View City Council
Consent A enda Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council
From: Kevin Carroll, Economic Development Coordinator
Item Title/Subject: Investigation of Stormwater Handling Options
(Mermaid Project Area)
Date of Report: September 23, 1999
BACKGROUND: At the City Council Work Session that was held on September 20th, City staff
and the Council discussed the need to obtain some professional engineering advice to help develop
and analyze options for improved stormwater handling in the vicinity of the Mermaid Supper Club.
This type of analysis will increase the likelihood of ultimately receiving the $333,333 DTED grant
that has been previously discussed with the Council. The analysis will also help the City and the
Developer determine what type of redevelopment, if any, is feasible for the Mermaid and the other
affected properties. As emphasized during the 9-20-99 meeting, authorizing the preparation of a
preliminary water quality management plan does not automatically obligate the City to implement
such a plan or to provide the Developer with any type or amount of financial assistance.
The earlier draft of the attached resolution has been revised (as requested)to re-emphasize that the
Developer, and not the City, will be responsible not only for the $4500 projected cost of SEH's
analysis, but also for any charges that might happen to exceed that amount.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Approve Resolution 5376, a resolution authorizing staff to retain SEH to prepare a preliminary water
quality •anagement plan for the proposed Mermaid redevelopment area, , as outlined in SEH's cost
esti dated July 1999, and with the express understanding that any and all such work will be
do lt the Deve •per'S expense.
"61/1/1/1//- C �
K-v Carroll (• . -717-4029)
Economic Development Coordinator
N:\DATA\GROUPS\ECONDE V\COUNCIL\STAFF99\9-27-99 B.DOC
RESOLUTION NO. 5376
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO RETAIN SEH, INC. TO PREPARE A
PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MERMAID
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
WHEREAS, discussions have previously occurred between the owner(s)/management of
the Mermaid Supper Club [hereinafter"the Developer"] and City staff regarding the possible
redevelopment of the Mermaid area, said redevelopment involving (among other things) the
construction of a hotel and the addition of a banquet facility to the existing Mermaid restaurant;
and
WHEREAS, any such redevelopment would be contingent upon the approval of, and the
issuance of a permit by, the Rice Creek Watershed District, given the proximity of the
redevelopment to Rice Creek and its surrounding wetland(s); and
WHEREAS,Rice Creek Watershed District representatives have indicated that issuance
of the required permit will be contingent upon the development of an acceptable plan for the
handling of stormwater run-off from the entire redevelopment site; and
WHEREAS, the number and complexity of the stormwater handling issues in question
makes it advisable to retain the services of a consultant to assist the City and the Developer in
devising a feasible and affordable water quality management plan; and
WHEREAS, the development of such a plan may help ensure that the City and the
Developer reap the full benefit of a previously-awarded DTED grant (in the amount of$333,333)
that was intended to assist with some of the costs related to the implementation of stormwater
handling improvements in the area in question; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has agreed to pay for the required consulting work, and has
agreed to provide the City with an advance payment for the full amount of the projected $4500
cost of said consulting work;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City staff members are hereby
authorized to retain SEH, Inc. to prepare a preliminary water quality management plan for the
proposed Mermaid redevelopment area, as outlined in SEH's cost estimate dated July 15, 1999,
with the express understanding that said work will be done at the Developer's expense, and with
the further understanding(s)that
(a) said work will be not be undertaken unless or until the Developer provides the City
with an advance payment in the amount of$4500 to cover the estimated cost of the consulting
work in question, and
(b) the Developer will be responsible not only for the estimated cost of$4500 for the
consulting work in question, but also for any costs or expenses that might happen to exceed that
amount for said work.
Adopted this 27th day of September, 1999.
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
I CERTIFY THAT the above Resolution was adopted by the City Council of Mounds
View on September 27, 1999.
Chuck Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COM1 EV\CITYCOUN\CCRESORD\92799MER.RES
Item No.
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September 27, 1999
Type of Business: EDA Consent
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: EDA Authorization to modify the Purchase and Redevelopment
Agreement with Vista Construction for 6991 Pleasant View
Drive.
Date of Report: September 23, 1999
Background:
This item was before the Council for discussion on September 20, 1999. It was reported that
Vista Construction had requested a revision to the approved Purchase and Redevelopment
Agreement for 6991 Pleasant View Drive so as to not require a financial guarantee for the agreed-
upon minimum improvements. Vista has submitted documents provided by their lenders
indicating sufficient financing to complete the improvements.
The Council, after discussing this with Staff, consented to a revision to Section 7.5 of the
agreement which would remove the financial guarantee requirement from the developer.
Discussion:
Attached to the EDA resolution is an exhibit which shows the language of Section 7.5 as it was
originally drafted and the revised language, which instead of deleting the section in its entirety,
modfies it such that the financial guarantee becomes optional, contingent upon:
"adequate evidence of financing in an amount equivalent to the difference between the
value of the Minimum Improvements ($181,250) and the Purchase Price of the Property
($47, 250).
The balance of this section has changed as well, but the intent--what happens in the event of a
breach of agreement--remains the same, offering the same protection to the City as before.
Recommendation:
Approve EDA Resolution 99-EDA-118, a resolution authorizing the revision of the Purchase and
Redevelopment Agreement with Vista Construction for 6991 Pleasant View Drive.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
C:\OF'N'ICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\JERICSON\EDA.RPT
RESOLUTION NO. 99-EDA-118
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVISION TO THE PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH VISTA CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 6991 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE
It is hereby resolved by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the Mounds View Economic
Development Authority(the "Authority") as follows:
1. Recitals.
(a) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 to 469.134 and 469.090 to 469.108.
(collectively, the "Act"), the Authority(i) has undertaken a program to promote the development
and redevelopment of certain land within the City of Mounds View and in this connection is
engaged in carrying out the Mounds View Economic Development Project (the "Project") within
the City; (ii) has approved a Project Plan for the Project; and (iii) has approved and adopted a
Housing Replacement Program under and as an aspect of the project plan.
(b) The redevelopment of property within the project is a stated objective of the Project Plan and the
Housing Replacement Program.
(c) The Housing Replacement Program's objectives include replacing lower-value housing on
scattered sites throughout the City with larger, new and higher value housing designed for
families, the elimination of blighting influences and the increase of available quality housing for
families within the City.
2. The Board authorized in EDA Resolution 99-EDA-116 the execution of a Purchase and
Redevelopment Agreement (the"Agreement")with Vista Construction(the"Developer") on
August 9, 1999.
3. The Board, at the request of the Developer, hereby authorizes revisions to Section 7.5 of the
Agreement as shown on the attached Exhibit 1.
4. The Board hereby determines that the Authority's execution of the revised Agreement and
subsequent sale and redevelopment of the Property would be in furtherance of the Project Plan and
hereby approves and authorizes said actions, including the execution of the revised Agreement by
the officers of the Authority in their discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem
appropriate.
5. Upon execution and delivery of the revised Agreement, the officers and employees of the
Authority(including members of the City staff, acting in their capacity as staff to the Authority as
well) are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be
appropriate or necessary on behalf of the Authority to implement the Agreement, including the sale
and redevelopment of the Property, per the provisions set forth in the Agreement.
6. The Board hereby determines that the execution and performance of the revised Agreement will
help realize the public purpose of the Act and are in furtherance of the Project Plan.
EDA Resolution No. 99-EDA-118
Page 2 of 2
Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority on
September 27, 1999.
Dan Coughlin, President
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, Executive Director
Exhibit 1.
Previously approved Section 7.5:
7.5. Prior to commencement of construction of the Minimum Improvements, the
Developer agrees to furnish to the Authority a performance bond, certified check, certificate
of deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, or cash escrow in the amount of 100% of the
Minimum Improvements (the "Financial Guarantee"). The value of the Minimum
Improvements is $181,250. Upon a breach by the Developer of this Agreement, and in
addition to and notwithstanding any other remedy the Authority has under this Agreement
or otherwise, the Authority may declare the Developer to be in default under this Agreement
and, upon failure of the Developer to cure the default within 30 days of written notice, may
demand the Financial Guarantee be paid over to the Authority. From the proceeds of the
Financial Guarantee, the Authority shall be reimbursed for any attorneys' fees, engineering
fees or other technical, administrative or professional assistance, and the remainder thereof
shall be used by the Authority to complete the Minimum Improvements. The Developer
shall be liable to the Authority in the event and to the extent that the Financial Guarantee is
inadequate to reimburse the Authority for its costs and pay for the completion of the
Minimum Improvements.
Revised Section 7.5:
7.5. Prior to construction of the Minimum Improvements,the Developer agrees to furnish to
the Authority one of the following:
(a) a performance bond, certified check, certificate of deposit, irrevocable letter of
credit, or cash escrow in the amount of 100% of the Minimum Improvements (the "Financial
Guarantee,"i.e.,$181,250 in this instance)or
(b) adequate evidence of financing in an amount equivalent to the difference between
the value of the Minimum Improvements ($181,250) and the Purchase Price of the Property
($47,250).
Upon a breach by the Developer of this Agreement,and in addition to and notwithstanding any other
remedy the Authority has under this Agreement or otherwise, the Authority may declare the
Developer to be in default under this Agreement and, upon failure of the Developer to cure the
default within 30 days of written notice, may demand that the Financial Guarantee, if any, be paid
over to the Authority. From the proceeds of any such Financial Guarantee, the Authority shall be
reimbursed for any attorney's fees, engineering fees or other technical,administrative or professional
assistance, and the remainder thereof shall be used by the Authority to complete the Minimum
Improvements. Whether or not the Developer furnishes a financial Guarantee,the Developer shall
be liable to the Authority for any costs that the Authority incurs in the event of a breach of this
Agreement by the Developer, including but not limited to the cost of completing the Minimum
Improvements.
Item No.
Meeting Date: September 27, 1999
Staff Report No.
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
Mounds View EDA Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council
From: Kevin Carroll, Economic Development Coordinator
Item Title/Subject: Proposed Joint EDC/EDA/Public Meeting Regarding Tax
Increment Financing
Date of Report: September 23, 1999
As you know, the EDA has directed the Economic Development Commission to study the City's tax
increment financing [TIF] policies and programs, and to recommend whatever changes or
modifications the EDC believes will be in the City's best interests.
The EDC began its analysis of this topic at its meeting on August 26, 1999. There was general
agreement that the EDC's work should begin with a review of relevant facts and data regarding the
City's "pre-TIF" commercial and industrial tax base and the impact(to date)that TIF-related
development projects have had upon that tax base. It was also generally agreed that this information
should be presented in format that would allow the EDC, the EDA and interested members of the
public to hear and benefit from the same information at the same time. It was suggested that the
EDC and the EDA schedule a joint meeting for this purpose, and that the meeting be well publicized
in advance so that residents and business owners could be made aware of this opportunity to learn
more about this important topic.
The EDC members and City staff believe that an evening meeting would be preferred, and that a
Thursday night would be as good as any, and that an effort should be made to limit the meeting to
two hours. The first part of the meeting would be devoted to a [hopefully interesting and
entertaining] staff presentation regarding "the history of TIF in Mounds View," and the second half
would be devoted to a question-and-answer session and/or possibly one or two guest speakers.
At the September 20, 1999 work session the City Council/EDA indicated that October 21, 1999 was
a good day to hold the meeting.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Motion to set a Joint EDC/EDA meeting for October 21, 1999 from 7 PM to 9 PM.
Kevin Carroll (612-717-4029)
Economic Development Coordinator
I
,
RESOLUTION NO. 5369
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CABLE TELEVISING OPERATING POLICIES
FOR CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City and the Mounds View Cable Television Committee have
discussed the merits of a policy for camera use and televising of city meetings; and
WHEREAS,the Council and Committee have reached an agreed upon set of operating policies;
BE IT NOW RESOLVED,that the Mounds View City Council approves the following
operating policies for all future televised city meetings:
Policies for Cablecasting Meetings of the Mounds View City Council
And Designated Commissions of Government
Procedural Policy
1. The Technical Director is responsible for camera coverage of the meeting.
2. All meetings will be covered "gavel-to-gavel,"which includes everything that transpires
between the official convening and adjournment by the meeting chairperson.
3. Members of the public who wish to address the convening body are required to present
their remarks at the podium or at a microphoned area provided.
4. The Mayor or presiding officer is responsible for directing members of the audience in
the correct use of the podium microphone or speaking area.
Technical Policy
1. Camera shots will be framed to include only the person who is speaking.
2. Wide shots of the meeting may be used to briefly punctuate camera coverage of long
statements or reports.
3. Pauses between shots are necessary to accommodate the time for the Technical Director
to choose the next shot and for the wall-mounted automatic camera system in the Council
Chamber to go from one shot to another.
4. Camera shots of citizens addressing the council, commission or committee may include
members of the audience, but they are seen only as background to the speaker at the
podium or microphoned area.
Mounds View Cable Committee
September 14, 1999
Adopted this 27th day of September, 1999.
Dan Coughlin,Mayor
Attest:
Charles S. Whiting, Clerk Administrator
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 5374
A RESOLUTION CONTINUING THE CABLE TELEVISING OF
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City and the Mounds View Cable Television Committee have
reviewed the merits televising city board and committee meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Council and Committee agree that televising city meetings since April of 1999
has brought the work of city committees closer to residents, improved understanding of city
issues within the community and has exceeded expectations of meeting all open meeting and
sunshine laws;
BE IT NOW RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council authorizes the continued cable
televising of city board and commission meetings.
Adopted this 27th day of September 1999.
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Attest:
Charles S. Whiting, Clerk Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No.
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: September 27, 1999
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.
Asphalt
Frattalone Paving, Inc. -New
HVAC
Automatic Garage Door&Fireplace-New
Bonfe's Plumbing & Heating - New
DeNio Appliance Service -New
Egan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. - Renewal
Joel Smith Heating& Air Conditioning - New
Viking Heating& Air Conditioning Co., Inc. - New
Sign
Signergy Sign Group, Inc. -New
General (Residential)
Heartland Industries (sheds only) -New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No.
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September 27, 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 5366, a
Resolution Approving the Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
for an Over-sized Garage at 8011 Sunnyside Road, Requested by
Don Mackeben.
Date of Report: September 17, 1999
Background:
8011 Sunnyside Road is located north of Highway 10 mid-block between Hillview and Sherwood
Roads. The area of the subject property--an interior lot--is approximately 38,115 square feet,
nearly an acre. The house is set back approximately 85 feet from the street, with the detached
garage situated alongside the home on the south side of the property. The house, at
approximately 1,400 square feet, is presently larger than the existing 720 square-foot, two-stall
garage. The applicant proposes to replace the garage in the exact same location and construct a
320 square-foot addition to the rear of the new garage to be used for a storage, or perhaps a
workshop or hobby area, bringing the total proposed square-footage of the garage to 1,040
square feet. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the garage would be larger than 952
square feet.
Analysis:
Dimensional Criteria
All of the dimensional criteria associated with this request--setbacks, spacing between buildings,
width of the garage and expansion, and the numbers of doors--satisfy the requirements as stated in
Chapter 1104 of the Zoning Code. The proposed expansion would be about constructed at the
rear of the garage, hidden from public view. The location of the existing garage from the south
property line is five feet, while the expansion area would be seven feet from the south lot line, 125
feet from the rear lot line, and over 125 feet from the north lot line, as shown in the site plan
provided by the applicant. The to-be-replaced garage and proposed addition would comprise less
than five percent of the rear yard area. The maximum coverage allowed is 20 percent.
Adverse Effects and CUP Criteria
The City Code, in Section 1125.01, Subd. 1 states that the shall examine the possible adverse
effects of a conditional use permit request prior to taking action on the request. The following
Mackeben CUP Request
8011 Sunnyside Road
September 27, 1999
Page 2
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, 8011
Sunnyside Road, as low-density residential. This proposal does not 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 more narrow than the subject property,
though all just as deep. The homes are generally of a similar style architecture and were
built around the same time. A larger garage on the subject property would not appear
out of place, as there is adequate screening, a substantial sized lot and larger home on
the property.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Adding to the existing garage will have an immediate positive impact on the value of the
subject property. At 1,040 square feet, set back from the street as far as it is, this garage
addition probably would not depreciate the surrounding area in any way.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
The applicant has stated that he would like to use this area for storage, hobbies and a work
shop. In creating this space, there would be ample room to park a boat, do crafts or
woodworking, instead of taking up space in the existing garage or in the basement.
This proposal appears to satisfy the adverse effects criteria. In addition to these, the Code also
requires that the general criteria for granting a conditional use permit, which are outlined in
Section 1125.01, Sub 3b, shall be examined:
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 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.
Mackeben CUP Request
8011 Sunnyside Road
September 27, 1999
Page 3
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 is set back further than is typical, and because the addition would be
situated behind the garage, there would be substantial public screening from this
accessory structure.
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.
Staff believes that the adverse affects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out-
weighed by the benefits. Staff also believes that it is desirable from a community perspective to
have property owners improve their properties with building expansions since the properties are
then usually kept in better order and may trigger other properties to do the same.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their September 15th meeting. No one from
the neighborhood was present and staff had not received any feedback as a result of the public
hearing mailout. After a presentation by staff and the applicant, the Commission voted to
recommend that this conditional use permit be approved, indicating that this proposal would be a
benefit to the property owner as well as the community.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Resolution 5366, a
resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,040 square foot garage at 8011 Sunnyside
Road, as requested by Donald Mackeben, with stipulations.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\569-99\MACKEBEN.CC 1
OTT li '<'It
3)3 HMO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
•f.�nr cs..
•„moo f � 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112
4'"Pti-Partners`Ill 612-717-4020
612-784-3462 -FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Information
Name of Applicant 1 j c) A/ NA k 5 .e L= Telephone 7 g V"s6)
Address. 0 // R l.) Fax
/\i/ 4"v4.7s 1/1 e iv/ /7 A(
's11V--
Interest in Property(check appropriate box)
Owner of Property ❑ 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 /
Address or General Location / cS v& (y c5-7 ,>9 R
Legal Description .�C—P 'Lc.l.�l�t.t.c� J I sL
Property Identification#(PIN#) D LQ 30 a3 M4 `f L -000(‘
# Acres e /1/ G / G k S p
Current Zoning g •
Type of Application
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250
O Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500
O Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit*
O Minor Subdivision $200
❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees
❑_ PUD Amendment $350
S Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250
❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250
O Code Appeal $100
❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750
❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200
O 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 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
❑ UndevelopedNacant Single Family Dwelling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling o Multi-family Dwelling
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment
❑ Other(explain)
Property Classification 0 Abstract Torrens
^ r
Description of Proposal /A U .b : �' 1 a .� �'� � X i c / � JV'
/yt e• >50N 12 RI b
c 4/,z2 1.&w T n sE z
�G c/ N I4-1i` I le" 4'12 4 es.//y->4
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
Name of Applicant(typed/printed) t N A / b 77 lit
Signature of Property Owner t
Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) 0z)/1(. -/p X A14 G/< J.? E
Address of Owner v /7 `- //,v/v.y c/,i9 d �J
itfo i/A/%s `i/` C L - SIA(
Phone Number of Owner 7 g Y' s"' v
************************************************************************************************
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal $-13. t g
Date of Acceptance Assigned to:
Planning Case No. 60-day Limit 120-day limit
Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt#
Application: i 7 /06_36)..7 I 9 00 ('
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
Other:
Total:
1/98
N:\DATA\GROUPSCOMDEVTORMS\DEVAPP.FOR
rt .
I 18 N 8_175______:. ' % 8160 8171 i
N IN N FN 814= ilg8155..,_.....x,.,....._.., 'g'`f1 w_.�, -.w 58165 i
`-'\ A 8150
! I i
i
R148145._.-.-.. .i i •� , tea,I 8145
1 8135 • 9 5
\, � 8140 8141
5 8125 8130 8131 . F
:L.,..
in Ni rn i �n in 1812$ " 12
M1 S 8111 781 N 1' N1 N f N ! N. N IN N ..`•:- N €
— H RWOOD
�
n 1 ^18080 180811 n i zi, 1
88088 (8075 °4I g -8099 S 808,
8085 - 8066 =� 8068 8071
s w- 8070 8071 1 _ 06 __ 8072
8075 60 80 ' 8055 =060 8065 8071
8060 8059 8050 _
q 8045 1 8040 m 7 .42 8045 1 u 86 ,2� 8051 f 8044 804;
6 --------I 8039 8032 8033 80. ' 8035 1 8032 8031
6 8025 8028 --w---- . • .,.� - i. .. _._ ..." y
8015 �--p 8025 8018 � / 8021 f 8022 801i
6 4 .�.__ __ 8011 / 8000 _...� �._
-6-t 8005 8016 8009 8006 /.//7/ 8011 , V 8000 8001
7985 8004 7981 7990 Co 7981 799. ccil 7989 7996 a 799:
p 7975 7970w 7979 •80 7969 W _1 79'.. 7979 1 7980 0 798:
,_,....+____)# 7965 7960 7959 79 • 7965 7960 796
_.. ... o _- 7966 7969 7950 795°
-7955 79..56 7949 _l___. 7954 7• • 7 -...:.---1.----. . -
�— 7940 79457946 792 ^ I
4 7933 7950 ".�" """ .�,.............Y. 7940
2 7930 7935, 7930 7917 �'
i\ �a, +n�`► 'n =°�. I in N i 7901
\ N 1 N •N 7900 7901 i 7900 :1,1 1 N 0,01 7900 7901 N I p i 7900
HLLLVIEW ROAD
ryi1°'�'h N 7886 p 78911m 40 i co [7880 78951 co N 7890 7885
7876 } 7885 _7866 7867 7870 7869
Z
y�C �2 D 7877 7854 7851 _ 7860 7865
.` 7870 u) .".........�-_..� . -
74 O y '‘ 7842 L 7850 785
'Lha "v f Y �8~� 7863... 7841 4€._., ,_.".. w.......•
/ ->�? \ 7851 „ 7830 8 7840 783;
=-3 .` I 7820 g 781',
�' "�ti �O ^� w� �.,. �..�.....�.,...._.....,p 7815 � 7790 ......,..�,.,,
isstik
� � �,,- �. ���`��•,`�,. z81 a � t _ Q 780
s., \ o ��1 j 7800 78os 7770 7ao1
�' `� >' �1�' B-2
t h R-4,,,, 7801 7764 W 7751
�°� 77677760 7741
ti
PUD el, It) „.`' ._. ....w...__i_..._...._... " (5_.
Zoning Map Planning Case 569-99
Applicant: Mackeben CUP Request
Location: 8011 Sunnyside Road
•
or
=- City of Mounds View
Location Map
■E■■ ■■■■ — I I 11 ' —
� � 1111 illi ��
...� 1111111�
rEll ill _
Illi_ �■ _ l 1 . /gm —.. _' ami _ - -
_Iiiii e— i r Ili E11111 n i i 1 I -- ► ....1
ff � u, 1s�l
_ -� „ sruca Ys»�h L,3f'Iuj s ..�
_ 'ss"ss§ss f s• ; m 3 3s
I.
:s:s ss3 s i w�::�NI .�€ f s u6_
■ -= �, i?fsbzw,,+„.w.z ..f f3 s ss�,.c.. .— ...=
-- ;ssftY�,s33. r^."+t5 u�a455:_ .__ ._ ..
. 64
i°f#Fr�'' �f ,,,,,,.i.„<„,,,,, „.., ,i,..,..,1i:I€ifit�— _,�1 M
t: 8011 Sunnyside RoadNI
In
ll 11111 1g 11111 11111 �� 11.-1--:H _ •
U
�■ON IdlJUIhtLI
� TllTr Hil'
ma limo _
MOM gi 1 *0 4 sim , . 911
1tikJITiIl 1 II I in
( .i11��
-fl ril I I 1 I I —\-: - __IIIIT,./NN 1—iii moo li 1- 1
ik,. ....
in
r,t
lrS' 1117 ==.J I •_I'-l_ .
.i=_...
lii,r
__-_______= / Don Mackeben
,.....--:,:21, ,.7.=_I al, _ "..._=LT_— 8011 Sunnyside Road
==-.... ..,...,........_�._' =w mi aa
`®
:a. :1111. --- - '1'11 Conditional,.� —�'llie = (''meq 111117 na Use Permit (Oversized Garage'
i'u�3 u�I1���E:Slit■r —=lauuuuu:
-I "II:_I •_'—"'� _ _ Planning Case No. 569-99
444:11.(1!:]§•.91E=4.-,----
M.5illj '-��',`:,�• �� .
i.
41.24 ,7=_—= .' 11111.1 1 1.11.111.{
,,,,H °b'. =I== °111„f1�111111111111
r..� ,11„11�11111�1111i111
,,,,Hi.
.I_ �i 'V__ �111t =uu „,l1 uuuuuuuu
„,i1 �:4,� ' ; : =!___ 8011 Sunnyside Road
FIE
•gll•.7,02 ".. . ��= uuluiwu. � Properties Within 350
�._ �IIIIIIIIII
WHIM•Li= 511111, 1re-�
11
RI . .
&Lk
EN a '
�i
•
•
. . . . . . .._.. . .... . . .. ._ •
_. .... ... . ._
•
N
••.
r
,. _..._. J . -I
• .,/ ,..0 ,..„._________:_f-r__ 1 • 74 0 4:4....r,,e ... -.. c yir.7'i.y . . 5-I
, ,
- i
•
t
t
i
. . S'e9 ill 5-60 i/r/1/)/S71 P Z: Rb i
‹.............s.......,- . • - - 1 b5'
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 594-99
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 8011 SUNNYSIDE ROAD;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 569-99
Whereas, Donald Mackeben has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for a 1,040
square-foot garage on property located at 8011 Sunnyside Road, zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential, legally described as follows:
Lot 92, Spring Lake Park Hillview,
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, there is currently a 720 square-foot garage 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 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 Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements as stated
in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse
effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.:
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, 8011 Sunnyside
Road, as low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Planning Commission Resolution 594-99
September 15, 1999
Page 2
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4. The Character of the Surrounding Area
In this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are more narrow than the subject property,
though all are just as deep. The homes are generally of a similar style architecture and were
built around the same time. A larger garage on the subject property would not appear out of
place, as there is adequate screening, a substantial sized lot and larger home on the property.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Adding to the existing garage will have an immediate positive impact on the value of the
subject property. At 1,040 square feet, set back from the street as far as it is, this garage
addition probably would not depreciate the surrounding area in any way.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
The applicant has stated that he would like to use this area for hobbies and a work shop. In
creating this space, there would be ample room to do crafts or woodworking, instead of
taking up space in the existing garage or in the basement.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria
for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.:
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 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 is set back further than is typical, and because the addition would be
situated behind the garage, there would be substantial public screening from this
accessory structure.
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.
Planning Commission Resolution 594-99
September 15, 1999
Page 3
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow for a 1,040 square-foot garage with
the following stipulations:
1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days
of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of
Mounds View.
2. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in
which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was
granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void.
3. The garage addition shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building
appearance with the existing garage.
4. All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upon the driveway's improved
surface or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass
or off of the improved surface.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this
resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 15th day of September, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\569-99\594-99PC.RES
RESOLUTION NO. 5366
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN 1,040
SQUARE-FOOT, OVER-SIZED GARAGE AT 8011 SUNNYSIDE ROAD;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 569-99
Whereas, Donald Mackeben has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for a 1,040
square-foot garage on property located at 8011 Sunnyside Road, zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential, legally described as follows:
Lot 92, Spring Lake Park Hillview,
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, there is currently a 720 square-foot garage on this lot; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant will be replacing the existing garage structure with a new
garage of the same size in the same location; 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. Staff Report
f. Planning Commission Resolution 594-99
Resolution 5366
September 27, 1999
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the dimensional requirements as
stated in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings that possible
adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01
Subd. 1.e.:
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, 8011 Sunnyside
Road, as low-density residential. This proposal does not 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 more narrow than the subject property,
though all are just as deep. The homes are generally of a similar style architecture and were
built around the same time. A larger garage on the subject property would not appear out of
place, as there is adequate screening, a substantial sized lot and larger home on the property.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Adding to the existing garage will have an immediate positive impact on the value of the
subject property. At 1,040 square feet, set back from the street as far as it is, this garage
addition probably would not depreciate the surrounding area in any way.
5. The demonstrated need for such a use.
The applicant has stated that he would like to use this area for hobbies and a work shop. In
creating this space, there would be ample room to do crafts or woodworking, instead of
taking up space in the existing garage or in the basement.
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council makes the following findings regarding the
criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.:
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 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.
Resolution 5366
September 27, 1999
Page 3
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 is set back further than is typical, and because the addition would be
situated behind the garage, there would be substantial public screening from this
accessory structure.
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves
a conditional use permit for a 1,040 square-foot garage with the following stipulations:
1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days
of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of
Mounds View.
2. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in
which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was
granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void.
3. The garage addition shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building
appearance with the existing garage.
4. All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upon the driveway's improved
surface or within the garage. At no time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass
or off of the improved surface.
Adopted this 27th day of September, 1999.
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\569-99\5366CC.RES
Item No.
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September 27, 1999
Type of Business: CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 639, an Ordinance
Amending Chapters 1109 and 1110 of the Mounds View Zoning
Code Pertaining to Conditional Uses within the R-4 and R-5
Zoning Districts.
Date of Report: September 20, 1999
Background:
This ordinance clarifies language regarding assisted living facilities and adds specific parking
requirements for such uses.
The first reading of this ordinance occurred at the Council's last meeting on September 13, 1999,
at which time staff indicated that the language proposed to be added as item"I" would be revised
to further clarify the intent of the parking requirements. Other than that change, the ordinance is
the same as what was presented and approved on September 13th.
This ordinance (and revision thereto) is supported by the Planning Commission, which
recommended that it be adopted to in part remove ambiguities concerning assisted living senior
residential facilities and the parking requirements associated with them.
Recommendation:
Approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 639, a ordinance amending Chapters
1109 and 1110 of the Mounds View Zoning Code.
jC1At4L ?''faAlul (Cn
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\ORD639.2ND
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 struck out
aid, 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 1 e 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 shift having the most
personnel present.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 13th day of September,
1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 27th 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\DE VCASES\5 59-99\639.ORD
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\639.ORD
I
City of Mounds View
Memo
To: Mayor&members of the City Council
From: Mary E Tatarek,Accountant
Date: 9/27/99
Re: Certifying delinquent receivables
The Council has before it, Resolution No. 5373,the certification of delinquent bills to Ramsey County to
be put against the affected properties. Listed below is the procedure that the City has followed in
contacting property owners of the affected properties.
• The Finance Director, Bruce Kessel, discussed the certification of delinquent receivables with
Council at the August 2,work session.
•
• On August 9, he reported to Council that letters would be sent to the residents with delinquent
receivables with the City.
• August 10, letters were sent to the residents explaining and detailing the certification process.
• On September 23, the Focus newspaper published a list of all properties that still had
outstanding bills.
• On October 25, at the regular council meeting the Council will be asked to hold a hearing and
certify the delinquent accounts for collection by the County. After that meeting the City will
deliver the list to the County.
Since the list was sent to the newspaper the City has received full payments of the delinquent bills on 2
properties; 5293 Raymond Avenue and 5400 Landmark Circle. These properties and all other
properties that pay their delinquent bills before the Council hearing on October 25 will be removed from
the certification list being send to Ramsey County.
1
RESOLUTION NO.5373
Approving Special Assessments for Delinquent Accounts and Nuisance Code Violations
against affected property.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
County of Ramsey
State of Minnesota
WHEREAS,pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law,the City Council has meet
and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments for delinquent accounts
and nuisance code violations.
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View:
1. The following proposed assessments:
7913 Greenfield Avenue;Mounds View,MN $565.00
5400 Landmark Circle; Mounds View,MN $139.83
5293 Raymond Avenue;Mounds View,MN $173.28
7900 Woodlawn Drive; Mounds View,MN $248.60
Midland Videen,Inc. 08-30-23-24-0053 $14,967.73
Midland Videen,Inc. 08-30-23-24-0054 $487.23
Midland Videen, Inc. 08-30-23-24-0055 $487.23
are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands
named therein in the amount of the assessment levied against it;
2. Such assessment shall be payable in full.
3. The owner, of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification to the
Ramsey County Auditor, pay the entire assessment on such property to the City of
Mounds View,with interest to the date of such payment, except that no interest shall
be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this
resolution.
4. The Clerk-Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment to the County auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the
County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as
other City taxes.
Said resolution was declared to have been duly passed and adopted this 27th day of September
1999.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
City Administrator
Item No.
Meeting Date: September 27, 1999
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: Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 5375 Approving the 2000 SCORE Recycling Grant
Request to Ramsey County
Date of Report: September 22, 1999
In conjunction with Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota SCORE Program,the City of
Mounds View is eligible to apply for grant monies to fund 2000 recycling activities. As a part of
the grant application, the City Council must formally request the funding.
The attached 2000 SCORE funding grant application describes Mounds View's recycling
program and proposed budget allocations. Please note, SCORE funds may only be used for their
allocated purposes (i.e., administration funds may not be used for publicity costs.)
Tracy Juell, Administrative Assistant
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 5375 Approving the 2000 SCORE Recycling
Grant request to Ramsey County.
RESOLUTION NO. 5375
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2000 SCORE RECYCLING GRANT REQUEST TO
RAMSEY COUNTY
WHEREAS, Ramsey County is accepting applications for use of SCORE funds to
improve recycling participation by the public; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is eligible to apply for a grant to provide
administrative and promotional activities intended to improve recycling participation among city
residents through education, awareness, and incentives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View has determined that this is an
appropriate use of city resources and that increasing recycling participation benefits the public
health, safety, and welfare of the community as a whole.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds
View approve the application for 2000 SCORE funding (attachment) and authorize acceptance of
any allocated funding.
Adopted this 27th day of September, 1999
(SEAL)
Mayor Dan Coughlin
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator
SAINT PAUL - RAMSEY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION
2000 SCORE FUNDING GRANT APPLICATION
CITY/TOWNSHIP CITY OF minims VTRW DATE SRPTRMRFR 99, 1999
PROGRAM PERIOD: January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000
CONTACT PERSON TRACY J DELL
ADDRESS 2401 HIGHWAY 10
MOUNDS VIEW, MN 55112
PHONE (612) 717-4052 FAX (612) 784-3462
1. DESCRIPTION OF 2000 RECYCLING PROGRAM:
A. SERVICE DESCRIPTION
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES
AS A CONDITION OF LICENSE FOR THE HAULERS, THEY MUST PROVIDE RECYCLING SERVICES
TO ITS CUSTOMERS. RECYCLE BINS ARE PROVIDED TO THE RESIDENTS BY THE CITY.
MULTI-UNIT HOUSING.(If service is not provided,please describe how they are assured THE GRANT
the opportunity to recycle on-site.)
AS A CONDITION OF LICENSING FOR THE HAULERS, THEY MUST PROVIDE RECYCLING SERVICES.
CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCES (If service is not provided, please describe how they are
assured the opportunity to recycle on-site.)
SEE ABOVE
MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS (If service is not provided, please describe how they are
assured the opportunity to recycle on-site.)
SEE ABOVE
NAME OF COLLECTOR(5) SEE ATTACHED LIST
ITEMS COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING:
GLASS, ALUM, TIN CANS, NEWSPAPER, CARDBOARD, PLASTIC, MAGAZINES, PAPER
z
5. IF THESE ACTIVITIES WILL BE ONGOING AFTER THIS GRANT PERIOD, HOW WILL THEY
BE FUNDED?
6. SCORE FUNDING GRANT PROPOSED BUDGET(ATTACH A COPY OF YOUR ADOPTED
COMPLETE 2000 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING BUDGET,INCLUDING ALL FUNDING SOURCES):
ADMINISTRATION: $ 8798.00
PROMOTION ACTIVITIES $ 8980.00
PLEASE DETAIL:
NEWSLETTER ARTICLES
MAILINGS
INCENTIVE AWARDS
NEW RESIDENT MAILINGS
RECYCLING BINS
COLORING BOOKS (ACTIVITY BOOKS)
EQUIPMENT $ NA
PLEASE DETAIL:
COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES $ 8500.00
PLEASE DETAIL:
SUBSIDIZED RECYCLING PORTION OF (2) CITYWIDE
SPONSORED CLEANUP DAYS.
TOTAL $ 2677R On
7. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR MUNICIPAL IN-HOUSE RECYCLING PROGRAM:
CITY OFFICES: CANS, NEWSPAPERS, GLASS, MAGAZINES, PLASTIC, CARDBOARD AND OFFICE PAPER
IS COLLECTED BY A LICENSED HAULER.
PUBLIC WORKS: USED MOTOR OIL AND OIL FILTERS ARE ACCEPTED AT A DROP OFF LOCATION AT
THE PUBLIC WORKS OIL DUMP SITE. (THE COLLECTED MOTOR OIL IS UTILIZED IN THE WINTER
MONTHS FOR HEAT IN THE GARAGE; IT IS BURNED IN 2 OIL BURNING UNITS.)
OIL FILTERS, ASPHALT, AUTO BATTERIES, ANTIFREEZE AND FLUORESCENT LIGHTS ARE RECYCLED
THROUGH PRIVATE LICENSED VENDORS.
3-
d g
ffffff,
City of Mounds View
GARBAGE HAULER RES OR COMM TELEPHONE
ACE SOLID WASTE RES AND COMM 612-427-3110
BFI RES AND COMM 651-455-8634
KEITH KRUPENNY ROLL OFFS ONLY 651-457-3680
LARRY'S SANITATION RES 612-441-4090
RANDY'S SANITATION COMM 612-479-3335
RAY ANDERSON & SONS DUMPSTER BOX SERVICE 651-774-2550
SUPERIOR SERVICES CONST WASTE/RECYCLE 651-437-8618
TWIN CITY REFUSE CONST WASTE/RECYCLE 651-227-1549
VASKO RUBBISH COMM, MULT DWELL 651-774-0916
VEIT CONST WASTE/RECYCLE 612-428-2242
WALTER'S RECYCLING AND COMM, MULT DWELL 612-780-8464
REFUSE
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF RES, M DWELL, COMM 612-784-8349
MINNESOTA
1999 Budget Summary 0121/99 09:33 AM BGf99OTR.WK4
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Change from 199R
Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget ]Dollar Percept
Recycling(290-4420): ('
evenues
3360 Other County grants 22,806 21,647 23,132 25,420 26,846 26,278 (568) -2.12%
3610 Investment income 39 0 0 (762) 0 0 0 ERR
3680 Other revenue 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR
3972 Transfers 0 0 0 159 0 0 0 ERR
Total revenue 23,345 21,647 23,132 24,817 26,846 26,278 (568) -2.12%
Operating expenses
Operations(4420)
Personnel services
0100 Salaries,regular 16,007 10,604 9,877 9,205 8,054 7,026 (1,028) -12.76%
0150 Salaries,part time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR
0321 Pensions 472 381 1,076 1,047 977 901 (76) -7.78%
0400 Group insurance 394 0 872 779 600 840 240 40.00%
0500 Workers compensation 213 85 69 33 35 31 (4) -11.43% •
Total personnel services 17,086 11,070 11,894 11,064 9,666 8,798 (868) -8.98%
Materials&supplies
1600 Supplies,operating 0 0 1,830 0 0 0 0 ERR
•
Contractual services
3030 Other professional services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR
3300 Postage 906 1,958 1,312 1,181 1,530 1,530 0 0.00%
3420 Advertisements 0 382 1,922 3,632 3,900 3,900 0 0.00%
3430 Printing 1,741 1,330 1,411 1,489 2,350 2,350 0 0.00%
3530 Refuse collection 750 5,503 5,392 6,401 8,200 8,500 300 3.66%
3960 Awards 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,050 1,200 1,200 0 0.00%
Total contractual services 4,397 10,373 11,237 13,753 17,180 17,480 300 1.75%
Capital
7030 Equipment 1,825 0 0 0 0 0 ERP
Total capital outlays 1,825 0 0 0 0 0 0 ER( !
Total expenses 23,308 21,443 24,961 24,817 26,846 26,278 (568) -2.12%
Net income 37 204 (1,829) 0 0 0 0 ERR
Equity,beginning year 1,588 1,625 1,829 0 0 0 0 ERR
Equity,end of year 1,625 1,829 0 0 0 0 0 ERR
( ,
SR l
Y