HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1999/09/13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council August 23, 1999 Minutes
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
6. REPORTS
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
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 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.
1. Roll Call
2. Vote: Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason, Coughlin
7:10 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.
7:15 C. Public Hearing and First 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.
C:\JOANB\AGENDAS\CC\9-13-99.CC
Page Two
City Council Agenda
September 13, 1999
7:20 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.
E. Consideration of Resolution 5370, a Resolution Regarding Changing
Rooms/Showers at the Community Center.
F. Staff Report regarding Woodcrest Park Mitigation Project.
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.
H. Consideration of Resolution 5354, A Resolution Denying a Wetland Alteration
Permit Request by Oakwood Land Development.
I. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 631, an Ordinance Rezoning
Property Located at 2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business, to R-4,
High Density Residential.
1. Roll Call/Vote: Stigney, Thomason, Marty, Quick, Coughlin
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.
K. Consideration of Resolution 5368, a Resolution Authorizing an Increase in the
City's Property Tax Rate for the Year 2000.
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:
1. First Reading of Said Ordinance.
2. Set Date for public hearing and second reading of said Ordinance
for 7:15 p.m. on October 11, 1999.
M. Approval of Applicant Hiring for Assistant to the City Administrator Position.
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.
O. Consideration of Resolution 5372, Authorizing Interfund Advance from Special
Projects to Golf Course.
C:AJOANB\AGENDAS\CC\9-I3-99.CC
Page Three
City Council Agenda
September 13, 1999
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- 7:00 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT C:\JOANB\AGENDAS\CC\9-13-99.CC
C:VOANB\AGENDAS\CC\9-13-99.CC
September 9, 1999
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator
Re: September 13, 1999 City Council Meeting
The agenda looks a little heavy but as I can attest, that first day back after some time off can be
that way. Here's what we have for Monday night:
10. A. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 635 re: Regulation of Right of
Way Facilities: The Council is familiar with this ordinance as being the one of the three right of
way related ordinances discussed since early summer. No copy of the ordinance is included in
your packet. Council members wanting to see one can call the office for one. Otherwise this
should be the same as the last one given Council. After the public hearing, the Council will need
to vote to approve the ordinance in a roll call vote.
10. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance 637 re: Signage Standards: The staff
report from Community Development will review this for the Council. If there are interested
residents or if the Council seeks to make changes to the proposed ordinance change, I would
suggest continuing the public hearing to the next meeting at which the second reading of the
changed ordinance would be presented.
10. C. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance 640 re: Changes to Driveways and
Street Openings: Council should also be familiar with this ordinance as it too stems from past
discussion on rights of way and the driveway entrance concerns of last spring. Again, the new
ordinance is not included in your packet as it has not changed, but call if you need a copy.
10. D. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance 639 re: Conditional Use Changes in
R-4 and R-5 Districts: The staff report from Community Development will review this for the
Council. If there are interested residents or if the Council seeks to make changes to the proposed
ordinance change, I would suggest continuing the public hearing to the next meeting at which the
second reading of the changed ordinance would be presented.
10. E. Resolution 5370 re: Changing and Shower Rooms at the Community Center: This
resolution will allow Terri to move on pursuing bids for this improvement at the Community
Center with the affirmation of the Council. Final approval of a bid will still need to be approved
by the City Council later.
10. G. Resolution 5365 re: Wetland Buffer Permit at 6991 Pleasant View Drive: The Council
has seen this property before. The Community Development memo can give the details but it
appears this permit is needed in order to construct the house on the lot. Council members may
want to take note of the differences between this resolution and the next agenda item.
10. H. Resolution 5354 re: Denial of Wetland Alteration Permit Request: The Council
reviewed this matter at the last meeting and took public comments. The request by Oakwood
Land Development does conflict with the original understanding of the use of this lot. This issue
has come up periodically with the same issues being reaffirmed. The resolution drafted here is to
deny the request.
10. I. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 631 re: Rezoning of 2670 County Road I:
This is the rezoning that will accommodate the new school going into the mall building. Council
reviewed this last month and action Monday will require a roll call vote.
10. J. Resolution 5367 re: Setting of Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Date and Setting
Preliminary Tax Levy for the 2000 Budget: See Bruce's memo on this.
10. K. Resolution 5368 re: Authorizing Increase in City's Property Tax Rate for 2000
Budget: This associated action to the previous one is a new state requirement getting at the tax
rate as well as the budget. In communities where the tax base is growing, this does not
necessarily have to be done, but here in Mounds View at least for the coming year, the tax base
has not grown enough to preclude this requirement.
10. L. First Reading and Setting of Public Hearing for Ordinance 641 re: Implementation
of Franchise Fee for Year 2000: Bruce will cover the particulars of this action. In general, the
Council will recall that the current franchise fee rate is 2.5% on gas and electric usage. This
expires on December 31 of each year. Action needs to be taken by mid-October each year in
order to secure NSP and now Minnegasco's compliance for January of the following year. The
decision this year for the Council appears to be whether to continue at the 2.5% as initially
shown in the first balanced budget draft, or change it. The restrictions on the levy make reducing
that percentage difficult without some serious service level changes, while suggestions for
developing an ongoing fund earmarked for street improvements suggest increasing the fee to 4%.
The Council does not have to decide Monday, but should figure on doing so by October 11. An
aside, if the Council can keep the research simple on this matter, as Bruce will be on vacation in
the upcoming weeks, I would appreciate it. Council will need to take action to set the public
hearing date for the second reading, suggested to be the October 11 Council meeting.
10. M. Approval of Applicant Hiring for Assistant to the City Administrator Position: I
have narrowed down my selection but I'm still checking references and confirming terms for
hiring. I expect to have this done by Monday and will present my choice for the meeting.
10. N. Resolution 5345 re: Conditional Use Permit at 2670 County Road I: This pertains to
the assisted living complex proposed by MSP Real Estate.
In other business, the Council should put the date of October 6' aside and attend a joint meeting
of the I-35W Corridor Coalition and the Met Council, 5:30 p.m. at the New Brighton Family
Service Center. This is an honor to have the Met Council agree to do this, but it is more
important to understand the meaning of this meeting. The Coalition will be presenting the work
done by our communities over the past three years and propose the Council give consideration to
the process, findings and interests of our region's seven cities. The Council, along with the
Legislature and McKnight Foundation has funded much of the planning efforts of this period.
The critical issue however is to gain the Met Council's acceptance of a process developed outside
their normal framework and policies for planning. In other words, the Coalition is set to propose
methodology, policy and projects to the Council as a way of doing things, instead of the other
way around. The other critical factor in this is the acknowledgment by Coalition leadership,
principally the city managers, mayor and community development staffs that the full implication
of this approach is not fully understood by our own communities, something which the managers
themselves have struggled with. It is a complicated and at times confusing approach,but the
overriding theme seems to be two fold, one,joint planning among the communities improves the
region better than seven separate and possibly conflicting approaches, and two, there is greater
power in the greater number. We have the attention of the Met Council and much of the
metropolitan region on how and if such an approach is feasible. The purpose of this meeting will
be to review and make a case that it is feasible, and Mounds View Council attendance along with
the other city councils in the region will determine that. I will also be adding this for a short
general discussion at the work session of the 20.
Council members have probably noticed the work is coming to completion on Edgewood and the
city hall parking lot. A couple of minor problems persist, the striping is done quite right, but
overall it seems to be what was ordered. The remnant parcel may(or may not) have once again
caught the interest of developers, as an inquiry or two has been made. Otherwise, I have not
heard of any traffic problems with the new configuration.
That's it for now, have a good weekend and see you Monday night.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
August 23, 1999
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10,Mounds View, MN 55112
7:05 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, and Stigney.
NOT PRESENT: Quick and Thomason.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday,August 23, 1999, City Council Agenda
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
City Administrator Whiting stated that Planning Associate Ericson indicated that Item F had
been resolved, and requested it be withdrawn from the present agenda.
City Administrator Whiting requested that Items I and J be modified to set the Public Hearings
for the September 13, 1999, City Council meeting.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Accept the August 23, 1999 City Council Agenda as
Presented, with the Withdrawal of Item F, the Modification of Items I and J, and Waiving the
Readings of All Resolutions and Ordinances Presently Under Consideration, Unless Otherwise
Specified By the Council.
Ayes - 3 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Monday, August 9, 1999, City Council Minutes
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 2, third paragraph, to indicate the correct spelling
of the name "Samantha Orduno."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 3, first paragraph, to omit the second period at the
end of the last sentence.
I C:\ADM IN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting
Page 2
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 4, last paragraph, third to last sentence, to indicate
"and the rugs are now gone."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 8, last paragraph, second sentence, to indicate "...in
the form of a mortgage."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 9, second full paragraph,second sentence,to indicate
"...had undertaken a massive amount of bonding."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 9, fourth full paragraph, third sentence, to change
Council Member Stigney to Mayor Coughlin.
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 9, fifth full paragraph, last sentence, to indicate
"...would certainly have the opportunity to do so."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 13, first paragraph, to omit the second period at the
end of the last sentence.
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to page 15, third full paragraph, first sentence, to indicate
"Council Member Marty."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to page 16, third paragraph, third sentence, to indicate
"...and proud to have had the opportunity."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 28, first paragraph, vote tally section, to indicate
"Nays— 1 (Coughlin)"
Mayor Coughlin requested an insertion on Page 28, between the fifth paragraph, beginning with
("Council Member Stigney..."), and the next paragraph, ("Mayor Coughlin stated..."), to include
the vote tally as follows: Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Coughlin)
Mayor Coughlin requested the addition of a new paragraph, after the third paragraph on Page 29, to
indicate "Council Member Quick inquired if Mayor Coughlin was making a motion. Mayor
Coughlin stated that he was."
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 32, first paragraph, third sentence to indicate
"desperately attempting to keep that spending to a minimum."
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 3,first paragraph, second sentence,to indicate
"He stated an item brought forward by one of the meeting facilitators..."
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 8, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence, to
indicated "...to demolish an old, substandard house..."
2C:\A DM IN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting August 23, 1999
Page 3
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 10, first paragraph, seventh sentence, to
indicate "...if this had been an ethical contractor..."
Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 17, third paragraph, seventh sentence, to
indicate "...of both parties, they have gradually developed..."
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To accept the August 9, 1999 City Council minutes as
corrected.
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Motion carried.
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mayor Coughlin introduced the new Police Chief, Bill Clark, and welcomed him to the City of
Mounds View.
Chief Clark stated that he was delighted to be in the City of Mounds View, and to have the
opportunity to serve the Council, the City, and the citizens. He stated he had already seen many
good things in the City of Mounds View, and that there were many good things yet to come.
Mayor Coughlin stated that anyone who wished to contact Chief Clark could do so at his E-mail
address, Bi11C a,RCMNet.Or�. He added that Chief Clark could also be reached via telephone at City
Hall. Mayor Coughlin stated he looked forward to working with Chief Clark in the future.
6. REPORTS
Council Member Marty reported he had met with Northwest Youth and Family Services, and the
budget and other items were discussed during that meeting. He stated they had been asked to go into
a portion of Anoka County. He stated that presently they provide their services primarily in Ramsey
County, and are presently researching this. He stated he hoped to have additional information by
the next meeting of the City Council.
Mayor Coughlin reported he had attended a luncheon meeting with County Commissioner Tony
Bennett. He stated they had discussed a variety of issues, including the status of the airport
discussion, in relation to the Anoka County airport. He stated Commissioner Bennett gave him a
tour of the new jail site, which is approximately a two city-block section in the city of St. Paul,
where they would be constructing the new jail. He stated Commissioner Bennett had been very
active in securing that section for the County's use. Mayor Coughlin stated he was also provided
with an overview of the County Commissioner's budget process, and the issues they are presently
considering. He stated he had an enjoyable time, and it was a good opportunity to speak directly
with Commissioner Bennett in his office and to continue to build a relationship with him.
3 C:\ADM IN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mayor Coughlin stated the Director of Public Works and the Ramsey County crews have been
working on Spring Lake Road and County Road I, and he had received telephone calls, and been
approached by residents who extended their gratitude to the County and the City for a job well done.
He stated the project was still in the final stages of completion, however, as it develops,people have
indicated to him that they are very excited to have received the road they desired, and are pleased
with its appearance. He stated he would like to publicly acknowledge that the County workers on
that site are"top notch." He stated he had the opportunity to speak with the foreman at the site,who
worked the crews most diligently. He stated they should be commended for their good work.
Council Member Stigney reported he had attended the Planning Commission meeting,of August 18,
and that Items A, B, and C, presently set for public hearings had been considered at that meeting.
He stated that one of these items was the consideration and unanimous vote of the Planning
Commission to deny a conditional use permit for an oversized garage at 2801 Woodale Drive. He
stated another item was the request by MSP Real Estate for the assisted living senior residential
facility, which was approved. He stated the third item was the consideration of the wetland
alteration permit for Edgewood Square, which was unanimously denied.
City Administrator Whiting reported he had attended the League of Minnesota Cities Board meeting
the prior week, where he underwent his orientation with that body.
City Administrator Whiting stated he had received an interesting telephone call from an individual
who stated the traffic volume on Highway 10 had lessened since the US Highway 10 has gone
around the community. City Administrator Whiting stated he would be interested in hearing from
more people, who feel this is the case, and what this might mean, in terms of the development and
community issues along Highway 10.
Mayor Coughlin stated he had received similar comments, and that he had noticed less traffic
volume on the City's stretch of Highway 10, as well. He stated he had also noticed an increase of
traffic on Highway 118,many times over that,which was just a few weeks prior,a fairly vacant road.
City Administrator Whiting stated he believed this matter merited community discussion, as it
changes the character of the highway and with that, some of the land use planning may require
review. Mayor Coughlin stated he would be interested in attempting to facilitate this discussion with
the property owners and businesses that are adjacent to the City's section of Highway 10. He stated
the Comprehensive Plan was to be reviewed at the planning level, and these matters could be
revisited. He stated there was a limited window of opportunity, during which the state is giving the
County back the road. He stated if they wanted to do something differently with the road and the
way it is developed, they should have some input prior to the state or county stepping in and redoing
it. He explained that, after investing a major amount of capital on the road, the state or county might
be very resistant to changing it.
4C:\ADM IN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 5
Council Member Marty stated he had spoken with City Administrator Whiting and Community
Development Director Jopke regarding this matter, and he believed it did merit further discussion
and investigation in regard to what they would like to see happen.
Mayor Coughlin inquired if it would be the consent of the Council to coordinate some type of
discussion group with the Planning Commission, the Council, and the people in that location. He
stated he was aware that the design center, which works with the I-35W Corridor Coalition, views
the highway as a major redevelopment issue, in light of the City's large right-of-way on both sides
of the road. He stated there might be an opportunity to relocate a section or side of the road to one
side of the right-of-way, and potentially open more land for commercial and industrial development
along the highway. Council Member Marty stated he thought this should be discussed, and in a
format which was opened to the public, as well.
City Administrator Whiting stated the City had received some telephone calls from residents who
expressed their frustration in regard to attempting to provide directions to people who are following
the signs along the highway as they see them. He stated he would be meeting with the city managers
of Spring Lake Park and Blaine, and would mention this to them, and attempt to start some dialogue
in regard to the new name of the highway.
City Administrator Whiting stated the Council should have received a copy of a letter which was
directed to the Public Utilities Commission requesting they consider incorporating the City of
Mounds View in the(612)area code with the rest of Ramsey County,rather than the new(763) area
code. He stated this change would take place in approximately a year. Mayor Coughlin stated he
thought this was a good idea, and requested the Council be kept abreast of this matter.
Director of Public Works Ulrich provided an update regarding the water break repair issue, which
had been brought before the Council at its last regular meeting. He stated he had a conversation with
the attorney representing the resident who was dealing with this service break. He stated a number
of issues were discussed during this conversation, including the permitting process, the inspection
which was done on the premises, and that City Staff did assist to some degree with the repair, due
to the extreme wetness of the dig. He stated City Attorney Riggs had also spoken with the resident's
attorney that date.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated he and City Administrator Whiting had discussed the matter
with the resident,in terms of providing a special assessment, and repairing the water leak. He stated,
at that time, she indicated she did not wish to proceed with the service replacement,but merely repair
the line. He stated staff had attempted to obtain bids for the repair, and had worked with the resident
during the last week and a half, to attempt to determine how she would resolve this matter.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated, at this point, there is nothing that the City is legally liable
for. He stated an inspection had been performed on the repair. He stated the contractor has been
unable to locate the permit, which he may or may not have purchased. He explained there were
some shortages in staff at that time, with both the assistants to the Public Works Department, and
5C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 6
Community Development Department, absent on medical leave. He stated, whether or not the
permit was purchased, the peiulit requirement is merely to insure that an inspection is performed on
the job, and to insure the City is aware of any contractors that may be working on private or public
facilities throughout the City.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated they have come to the point where the leak not being
repaired, and they have not had any further contact with the resident,other than through her attorney.
He stated City Attorney Riggs had spoken with her attorney that date, to try and explain the City's
position on this matter. He stated, in similar cases, the City has generally notified the resident that
a leak has occurred in their service, and that they have ten days in which to repair the leak. He stated
the resident can also be held responsible for the amount of water that has leaked through the break,
once the size of the hole is determined, and that calculation can be made. He stated due to the
length of time the line has been leaking, or the hole expanding, there is a health, safety, and welfare
issue posed not only to the resident, but to her neighbors, and the remainder of the underground
utilities that are in that boulevard.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff would request the Council direct staff to send the
resident a letter, allowing ten days to repair the service, and if not repaired in that time, the City will
hire a contractor to perform the repair, and will make options available for payment, either through
special assessment, or some other type of program.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the length of time that the water line has been leaking.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated it has been leaking for approximately five weeks.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney: To Have Public Works or Staff give 10 days notice.
Ayes—3 Nays— 0 Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin requested Director of Public Works Ulrich send a notice to the resident.
City Attorney Riggs stated that he had spoken with the resident's attorney, and had discussed this
matter. He stated he could provide the attorney with further information, but was not certain it
would be fruitful at this time. He stated he believed this was the proper action for the Council to
take.
No further reports were considered.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims.
B. Consider Resolution 5362,a Resolution Authorizing an Interfund Advance from
the Special Projects Fund to the Golf Course.
6C:AADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 7
C. Consider Resolution 5363, a Resolution Authorizing a Golf Course Assistant
position.
D. Consideration of Resolution 5361,Approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement
for Edgewood Drive and TH 10.
E. Licenses for Approval.
F. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m. on September 13, 1999, to consider First
Reading Approval of Ordinance No. 637,and ordinance amending Section 1008
of the Mounds View Municipal Code to set signage standards in PF Public
Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreational and Preservation zoning
districts.
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion.
City Attorney Riggs stated he had discussed Item 7B of the Consent Agenda, the Interfund Advance
from the Special Projects Fund to the Golf Course, with City Administrator Whiting and staff. He
stated the City Code, Section 203.08, Subdivision 5, indicates the approval by resolution, by a four-
fifths vote of the entire Council. He stated that the language was somewhat ambiguous, but would
appear to indicate that the Code requires, with three Members present, all three votes in the
affirmative for approval. He explained it probably means the entire Council, and would require four
affilIuative votes, at any given time. He stated, as the Council did not have four Members present,
it would appear that this item could not be approved at this time.
Mayor Coughlin requested that Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda, until a later date.
Council Member Stigney requested the removal of Items C and D, for additional discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Coughlin. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, E, and F as
presented.
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Council Member Stigney stated that Item C, was a resolution in consideration of hiring a full-time
position as an assistant superintendent at the golf course with a 1999 salary of$28,000. He stated
the salary range for this position was not indicated, and inquired in that regard. He stated that he did
not support a full-time position, for three to four months of work per year at the golf course, and
believed this should be a seasonal position.
John Hammerschmidt, General Manager of the golf course, clarified the full-time position, as
opposed to a seasonal full-time position. He stated landscaping positions, as indicated in that date's
newspaper,range in pay between$9.00 and$12.00 per hour. He stated to hire an assistant with any
qualifications, on a seasonal basis, the City would be looking at $15.00 per hour. He stated, if you
did this for the 40 weeks, and during those weeks the person worked 50 hours per week, there would
be overtime to consider, and the City would be paying$28,000 to $30,000 for those nine months on
7C:\ADM IN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 8
a full-time seasonal basis. He stated, if that employee then took unemployment,which is paid by the
City, dollar for dollar, until the next season, the City would pay again for the three months that the
employee is off work. He stated it would benefit the City to have full-time salaried employees.
Mr. Hammerschmidt stated this person would be supervising five to seven people on the crew, and
would qualify as salaried personnel. He stated the majority of hours would be during the summer,
with 2,000 hours during the eight to nine-month season. He stated if they did not have to pay the
employee at an overtime rate, they could afford that position at the stated salary. He added this
position was covered under the 44 percent agreement in the City's contract, and there would be no
extra cost to the City or to the golf course. Finance Director Kessel explained the salary range would
be 20 percent less than that stated, and would be approximately$22,400 to $28,000.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the number of hours worked in this position during the
summer. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated the position would require at least 50 hours per week. He
stated this person would additionally be responsible for many of the same things he was, such as
checking for vandalism at night, making sure the pumps were on, and other duties in his absence.
He stated it would be difficult to find a qualified and responsible person for a seasonal position.
Council Member Stigney stated he believed they could have a full-time seasonal exempt position,
which would not require an hourly rate. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated he was not aware of this. He
stated,however, a full-time seasonal exempt position would still require compensation for time off.
Mayor Coughlin stated, as a businessman who has employees himself, he could see the wisdom of
this proposal, especially in regard to the massive amount of overtime they would have to pay out on
an hourly basis. He stated it would be beneficial to utilize a salaried position, with compensation
time during the off season. He stated this would provide they could keep a good employee for
several seasons at a lower cost.
Council Member Marty inquired if they could advertise the position to start at the low end of the
$22,000 to $28,000 range. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated he had advertised the position in the
Superintendent Magazine at the $24,000 to $28,000 range, for informational purposes. He stated
of 500 golf courses in the state, and 1,500 possible employees who would be qualified for the
position, they had received four responses. He stated the city of New Brighton had hired the same
position the previous year, and their low-end salary was $32,000.
Mayor Coughlin stated, as an employer in the State of Minnesota,with virtually zero unemployment
statistically, it was his observation that it was exceedingly difficult to find high quality people to
apply,much less accept a position. He stated if they could hire someone at$28,000,they would still
be paying $4,000 less than the city of New Brighton.
Mr.Hammerschmidt stated they would be winning in two ways by hiring a full-time employee,who
they would pay slightly more. He stated you never really know when the season is going to end.
He explained that last year, they played every month except for January. He stated this position
8 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 9
would provide that someone is available during that entire time, rather paying seasonal people in
overtime. He stated another positive factor, is that the golf course attempts to do as much work as
possible "in house," and this type of employee would assist with various projects that they would
not have to contract out, which would provide a savings.
Council Member Stigney stated the salary was somewhat misleading, in that the contract also
includes fifteen percent of the gross revenues of the golf course is to be used as enhancements or
incentive pay for the employees. He stated this amount would be added on top of the salary, and had
not been mentioned.
Mayor Coughlin stated this was small change in order to keep quality people on board. He stated
if they hired a person who was not qualified or well trained, it would cost more money than it was
worth.
Council Member Marty inquired if the golf course had previously utilized this position. Mr.
Hammerschmidt stated they had, three times previously. He stated the first employee was hired in
an intern position, and lasted a little less than a month. He stated this person was not happy with the
hours. He stated the second person they hired was very qualified and had gone through the Pebble
Beach program. He stated that his was a money issue. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated the third person,
once again, was unhappy with the hours, and decided it would be easier to go into a landscaping
position. He stated the salaries, at that time, were all approximately $18,000 to $20,000.
Council Member Marty inquired how long this position had been vacant. Mr. Hammerschmidt
stated it had been vacant for almost a year. Council Member Stigney stated this might bring to
question whether or not the position is really necessary. Mr. Hammerschmidt stated to this point,
he had filled the position with senior citizens,who are not always available, or with high school and
college students. He stated the previous Friday, when they normally have a crew of seven to nine
people on the golf course, they had three. He stated when the students return to school, and in the
spring and fall, there are no people available. He stated that with a full-time person on staff, they
could better adjust the schedules of the part-time employees. He stated if they do not require a part-
time person, they reduce their hours.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Coughlin. To Approve Resolution No. 5363, a Resolution (Re)
Authorizing a Golf Course Assistant Superintendent Position.
Ayes—2 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin asked City Attorney Riggs, with three Members present, two voting in the
affirmative and one opposed, did the motion pass. City Attorney Riggs stated it did.
Council Member Stigney inquired if Item D required only a simple vote to pass. City Attorney
Riggs stated this was correct.
9C:AADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 10
Council Member Stigney stated he was never in favor of the percentage of cost sharing on the traffic
light, and did not see why he should vote for it at this time.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the City's percentage of the cost of the traffic light.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this was 100 percent, however, there had been a contribution
by the Theater project for the traffic signal, the turn lanes, and the associated work in the median.
Mayor Coughlin stated this matter was basically a formality. He stated it had already been approved,
many have invested in it, and if the Council denied it at this point, they would be faced with legal
difficulties. He stated he could appreciate Council Member Stigney's opinion on the matter, adding
that he had been consistent in this regard.
Council Member Marty stated he also appreciated Council Member Stigney's opinion. He stated
he held a somewhat similar view himself, however, they were presently installing the traffic light,
and if not approved, they would simply not turn on the power. He stated he believed it was beyond
the point of reconsideration.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Coughlin. To Approve Resolution No. 5361, a Resolution Approving
Traffic Control Signal Agreement for Edgewood Drive and Trunk Highway No. 10.
Ayes—2 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
Bill Varner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated the time has come for the golf course to begin paying
back its loan. He stated the golf course is not making enough money to do that, so the Mounds View
taxpayers will have to make up the difference. He stated the Council appears to be interested in
ideas of creative financing, which impression he obtained from the previous Council Work Session,
and that he would like to propose a plan for getting the golf course some free money. He stated
many of the people of Mounds View were now receiving their state rebate checks in the mail. He
inquired if the Council could request those people who want the golf course to send their Minnesota
rebate checks to a Mounds View Golf Course fund. He stated this would be voluntary, similar to
the plan the Governor has instituted to finance the new stadium. He stated this plan would have an
additional benefit, in that it would be better than a survey or poll to tell the Council what the
taxpayers really want.
Bill Larson, President of the Spring Lake Park Lion's Club, stated that last year their club had
embarked upon a project of park improvement, both in Spring Lake Park and Mounds View. He
stated one of their previous presidents had been very steadfast in this effort, and during his
10C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 11
presidency, he had managed to persuade the club to donate a large check to the Spring Lake Park
Parks and Recreation Commission, for the express purpose of improving Lakeside Park at Spring
Lake. He stated both the Mounds View Lions and Spring Lake Park Lions share that park, as well
as the residents of Spring Lake Park,Blaine,Mounds View, and the surrounding area. He stated that
this was to be one of their first projects.
Mr. Larson presented the Council with a facsimile of the check they have donated, in the amount of
$20,000,which funds were earmarked for the Lakeside Park improvement. He stated this was "seed
money," and it was hoped that future presidents could continue donations until the improvements
at Lakeside Park are completed. He stated they had ideas for improving the playgrounds, making
them AVA accessible, painting some of the existing equipment, the addition of a wading and
sanding area,park benches, new shelters and cement foundations, and to include benches along the
parkway. He stated the following day they would hold a meeting at the City Council chambers in
Spring Lake Park,with Park and Recreation Commissioners from Mounds View, Spring Lake Park,
and representatives of the YMCA. He stated this meeting was to determine what they would do with
the money. He stated they were going to attempt to get as many projects underway as possible
before the snowfall. He stated they would utilize some of the members of both the Mounds View
and Spring Lake Park Lion's Club to perform some of the work themselves, as well as the Lioness's,
who would be interested in planting flowers, and doing some work to spruce up the Park.
Council Member Marty inquired if the meeting would be open to the public. Mr. Larson stated the
meeting would not be opened to the public, as there would be a committee comprised of
approximately twenty people selected from Mounds View, Spring Lake Park, and the YMCA. He
stated the Council Members were welcome to attend. Council Member Marty stated he had been
invited, however, would be unable to attend. Mr. Larson stated that he could contact him on
Wednesday, to learn the outcome of the meeting. He added that Jay McCluskey from the Parks and
Recreation Commission could send information regarding the approved items, and when the projects
would commence. He provided the Council with information with which to contact the Lions Club
members.
Mayor Coughlin and Council Member Marty expressed their thanks and appreciation for all of the
work the Lion's club had done.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, inquired regarding a pickup truck,which had been purchased
by the City for use at the golf course. He stated he was aware that the golf course required good
transportation, however, he had thought they could purchase a new pickup for approximately
$28,000, and inquired how much the pickup had cost. He stated he had heard it was the "top of the
line."
City Administrator Whiting stated he was uncertain, adding that he was aware it was purchased
slightly damaged. Mr.Hammerschmidt stated the total cost of the pickup was less than$25,000,and
had been purchased used, with a small dent in it.
11C\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99 CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 12
Mr. Varner inquired requested the Council respond to his suggestion to request golf course funds
through the donation of taxpayers' state rebate checks. He inquired if the Council would pass a
resolution to set up such a fund.
Mayor Coughlin stated that any donations to such a fund would certainly be accepted. Council
Member Marty stated he had heard that the fund for the new stadium in St. Paul had collected$243.
Mr. Varner reiterated this plan was better than a poll or survey to indicate what the taxpayers want.
Mayor Coughlin stated, the City has obligations that must be met, regardless of whether or not a
member of the present Council cared for the creation of the project. He stated, with those
obligations, it was incumbent upon him, as leader of the Council, to attempt to keep this project
financially viable as possible. He stated that it was a workable situation, although certainly not
where he would like to be. He stated anyone who wished to donate, could certainly do that, and did
not think it would be necessary to initiate a separate fund for this purpose. He suggested that anyone
wishing to donate could, instead of paying the $15 green fee to the golf course, simply provide his
or her additional donation at that time. He stated he was in favor of whatever means were available
to keep the City viable and accountable. Mr. Varner inquired therefore would the Council promote
the idea of people sending in their refund checks for the golf course. Mayor Coughlin explained that
Mr. Varner's suggestion had just been aired on cable TV, and anyone wishing to donate to the golf
course could contact the Finance Director or John Hammerschmidt, in that regard.
There were no further requests or comments from the floor.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing for the consideration of Resolution 5353, a resolution
contemplating denial of a conditional use permit for an over-sized garage to be
located at 2809 Woodale Drive.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this property is located at 2809 Woodale Drive,just off of Silver
Lake Road. He stated the property has a small house, approximately 400 square feet in size, and an
existing two-stall garage, which is 720 square feet. He stated the garage is already approximately
twice the size of the house. He stated the applicant proposes to construct a 476 square-foot addition
to the rear of the garage, making it 1,296 square feet in size, which would be three times the size of
the house.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was discussed at the Planning Commission level, and
the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the request be denied on the
basis of it being so disproportionately larger than the house. He stated that garages are intended to
be an accessory structure. He stated a garage three times the size of the house calls to question,
which is the principal structure on the property.
12C:\ADM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 13
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff had reviewed the adverse effects, as with any conditional use
permit request, and found that there are some adverse effects which would be associated with this
proposal, were it to be approved. He stated that the garage would be out of character with the
neighborhood, it would seem disproportionately large, and would certainly appear out of place and
obtrusive.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission felt some of the general requirements
associated with the conditional use permit were not met, and for that reason they recommended
denial of that request.
Planning Associate Ericson stated, based upon the Planning Commission discussion and
recommendation, staff has drafted a resolution for the Council's action, which does deny the
conditional use permit request for the oversized garage.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was not present, although he was made aware of the
meeting.
There was no public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:57 p.m.
Council Member Marty stated he agreed with the good work the Planning Commission had put
toward this matter. He stated it appeared it had been well reviewed, and he was in agreement with
their recommendation.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Approve Resolution 5353, a Resolution Denying a
Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Garage at 2809 Woodale Drive; Mounds View Planning
Case No. 552-99.
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Motion carried.
B. Public Hearing for the consideration of a conditional use permit for an assisted
living senior residential facility and for the Introduction (First Reading) of
Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning property located at 2670 County Road
I from B-2, Limited Business, to R-4, High Density Residential.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated MSP Real Estate has made an application to rezone the vacant
Kraus-Anderson property located at 2670 County Road I, behind the SuperAmerica Station, from
B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High-Density Residential. He stated they have also
requested a conditional use permit to construct and operate an assisted living senior residential
facility, comprised of 48 units, to be located on that parcel.
I3C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 14
Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was heard by the Planning Commission, at four prior
meetings. He stated the Planning Commission, the applicant, staff, and several residents had
discussed the issues,bringing forward a number of concerns to the City and the neighborhood. He
stated there was extensive discussion with regard to parking on the site,traffic circulation, taxes, and
other site related concerns as to whether or not this type of use would be appropriate at this location.
He stated a great deal of time had been devoted to this discussion, and as Council Member Marty
had indicated, the Planning Commission worked very hard on this issue.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the two issues for consideration were the rezoning request, and
the conditional use permit request. He stated the conditional use permit could be accomplished with
a resolution, which would be drafted, pending the Council's discussion and direction to staff. He
stated the rezoning would be accomplished through an ordinance,which would require two readings.
He stated an ordinance has been drafted for the Council's consideration, and the public hearing had
been scheduled for the present meeting. He stated the Council could determine whether or not they
would entertain the reading of the ordinance at this time.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff had reviewed the tax issues and discussed them with the
Ramsey County Tax Assessor's office. He stated this was in regard to the effects of the proposed
use on the tax base, and whether or not a commercial use would generate more tax dollars. He stated
it was determined that the proposed use would quite possibly generate more to the City's tax base
than a retail use, which would be permitted in the B-2 Zoning District. He stated the applicant has
indicated the valuation of the project would be approximately 1.5 million dollars. He stated, should
that be the case, the City could be acquiring a significant tax base with this proposal.
Planning Associate Ericson stated, with regard to the rezoning request, the Planning Commission
had requested there be a mechanism to revert the zoning of the property to the commercial
designation if the proposed use did not go forward. He explained that Ordinance 631, presently
before the Council, contained a clause in Section 3, which proposes that, in the event this project
does not proceed, the City Council may act to rezone the property back to its original zoning
designation. He stated this matter had been reviewed by the City Attorney, who indicated that the
language was in proper legal form, and would not create a situation in which the Council would be
obligated to act.
Planning Associate Ericson stated there are some specific site requirements, in terms of the
conditional use permit,regarding side yards, side yard setbacks, and other similar matters. He stated
all of these criteria could and will be met. He stated one other action that would be required prior
to this request coming to fruition, would be that the developer would be required to come before the
City again in the form of a Development Review, and this process would clarify all of the site-
specific requirements. He stated, at that time, the City would review sidewalks, the parking access
to the property, and the layout and elevation of the proposed facility. He stated while the preliminary
information in this regard was before the Council, any additional questions would be clarified at the
Development Review stage.
14C:\A DM IN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 15
Planning Associate Ericson stated another issue of concern with this proposal was the parking. He
stated the neighborhood was very concerned that there not be any overflow parking or traffic
encroaching into the neighborhood. He stated the developer has proposed 31 parking stalls, which
exceeds the City's requirement for this type of use, and the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council adopt an ordinance that would revise the City Code pertaining to parking
requirements of these types of uses. He stated that this ordinance, Ordinance 639, was also before
the Council for consideration, however, the public hearing had not been set at this time. He stated
staff would require direction from the Council to schedule the First Reading of Ordinance 639.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval
of the conditional use permit request, the rezoning request, and the Code Amendment to the R-4
Zoning District which clarifies the language pertaining to assisted living facilities. He stated there
were a number of options available to the Council for action. He stated one option would be to
direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the conditional use permit, to hold the public hearing
and First Reading for the ordinance rezoning the property, and to direct staff to schedule a public
hearing for the ordinance which amends the code. He stated the Council could also direct staff to
draft a resolution denying the request for justifiable reasons. He stated, in this event, staff would be
required to provide some reasons why denial would be appropriate. He stated another option would
be to table the matter until the next City Council meeting, in the event that further information is
required.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicants and their representatives were present. He stated
the residents in the neighborhood had been very involved in the discussions, and had provided some
good comments and suggestions, and that this was appreciated. He stated there was still some work
left to be done with regard to the site plan, should the conditional use permit was approved,however,
those matters could be further discussed by the Council at one of the future meetings in September.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, inquired if this was the same developer who had previously
requested TIF financing. He inquired if the proposal was to develop apartments for senior citizens.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would classify the proposal as an assisted living/compartmentalized
nursing home,with personal living units, and a common space in the center for dining and kitchen
facilities.
Mr. Jahnke stated he was concerned regarding the discussion that the City had met their quota of
apartment buildings, and that they continue to build more. He inquired how many of these types of
developments the City wants. Mayor Coughlin stated it is his understanding and belief that a
community should have a good portion of life-cycle housing. He explained there should be housing
available for people like himself, starting out in live with young families, larger homes to
accommodate larger families, and when the children are grown, and not so much space is required,
there should be condominiums, apartments or smaller dwellings available to meet those needs. He
stated he believed this facility would be filling a niche for those individuals who suffer with
Alzheimer's disease to some degree, as well as other disabilities which require some assistance, and
to honor and provide dignity to their lives, and allow them as much independence as possible. He
15C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 16
stated he viewed this proposal as a unique development within the City, which would provide
services that might not otherwise be available, to those less fortunate in regard to their physical and
mental health. He stated this facility would provide the opportunity for these individuals to remain
in the community, with their families, friends and neighbors. Mr. Jahnke stated he appreciated
Mayor Coughlin's explanation of this proposal.
Mr. Jahnke stated another of his concerns was in regard to this particular developer, who had
requested the City to amend its position in regard to parking requirements and other similar matters.
Mayor Coughlin stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed this issue at four meetings, and
the parking requirements were not only of major concern to the Commissioners, but also, to the
residents who had testified at those meetings.
Council Member Marty stated he had spoken with Planning Associate Ericson regarding the parking
requirements as set forth in the City Code, and that this developer proposes to meet or exceed those
requirements. He requested Planning Associate Ericson further clarify the parking issues for the
Council and the residents.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Code, with regard to nursing homes and other types of
similar uses, requires that for every three beds, there be one parking stall, with an additional four
stalls at the facility. He stated this was a 48-unit facility, and the maximum number of possible beds
was 52. He stated the Code would require a total of 22 parking spots. He stated that staff, the
Planning Commission, and the residents felt this may not be sufficient, even though it is what the
Code requires. He stated research was done in regard to what other cities require, and what other
similar institutions have provided, and whether or not their parking is sufficient for their needs. He
stated the Planning Commission felt that the parking requirement should be drafted in such a way
so as to require one stall for every three beds, plus one stall for every employee present on the
busiest shift, in lieu of the additional four stall requirement. He stated the applicant has indicated
that the maximum staff could be as many 14, and the Planning Commission indicated that 31 parking
stalls would be sufficient for any parking needs.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant has secured an agreement with the neighboring
Silver View Plaza, to utilize the back half of their parking lot, to accommodate overflow parking,
during the holidays, and in the event of staff/resident parties. He stated this was one of the reasons
the Planning commission felt very comfortable with 31 parking stalls. He stated that is parking
allowed on Mounds View Drive, however, the applicant, City staff, and the residents would rather
not see parking in that location, due to the curvature of the street, and the issues of visibility. He
stated that although additional overflow parking was available, the parking in Silver View Plaza was
seen as a much more acceptable solution.
Milo Pinkerton, representative of MSP Real Estate, stated they have built two other facilities in the
community of Mounds View. He stated these are the Silver Lake Point apartments, and the Silver
Lake Commons,which is a renovation of two existing apartment buildings. He stated they have also
built ten new town-homes within the City. He stated each of those facilities is considerably different
16C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 17
from the others, as is the proposed facility. He stated the Silver Lake Point apartments are for senior
citizens, 55 years or older. He clarified that the Silver Lake Commons did not receive any TIF
financing, but rather found financing through MHFA and other sources, which are available to
anyone who can qualify for Section 42 rent income limit. He stated the proposed facility is for the
continuum of care for the residents who perhaps presently reside in Silver Lake Point, Silver Lake
Commons, or the ReaLife Cooperative. He stated there are almost 300 residents in those three
buildings, as well as senior citizens who live at home, and require nursing support staff in daily
activities and socialization. He stated the proposed facility would provide a supervised supportive
facility to meet these individuals' needs. He stated Ed Meyer, was presently considering managing
the proposed facility.
Ed Meier,President of Senior Solutions, stated that Mayor Coughlin had properly summarized the
proposal. He stated the facility would be for those people who were unable to live at home by
themselves anymore. He stated the typical profile of their resident will be 85 to 90 years old,
requiring assistance with approximately three activities of daily living, which include bathing,
dressing, incontinence,medication reminders, and mobility. He stated they could guarantee a safe
environment for these individuals, which provides proper nutrition, socialization, independence and
dignity, within the community they grew up and worked in.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Council Member Stigney inquired if the applicant was requesting financial assistance from the City,
in any manner, including the co-signing of loans or documents to secure financing. Mr. Pinkerton
stated they were not.
Mayor Coughlin stated he had heard some questions in regard to the City's consideration of what
was termed"down zoning"of the B-2 property to an R-4 zoning, and some concern that this might
be anti-business or the removal a parcel that could have been developed for business. He stated he
assumed that, even if considered nonprofit, the facility would still be considered a business, and in
that regard, they were considering a business operation in that area. He stated that the property has
been zoned B-2 for quite some time, and there have been no active seekers to develop this parcel.
He stated it appeared the market forces have spoken, and the B-2 zoning might not have been the
best for this particular parcel, or it would have been developed before this time.
Council Member Marty stated when this first came up to the Council, he was not in favor of it,
however, through the discussion and research presented, he thought this proposal could meet some
of the needs of the City. Mayor Coughlin stated we are all getting older. He stated the
demographics indicate the median age would increase significantly within the next ten to fifteen
years,in the inner cities,core cities, and first string suburbs. He stated these types of facilities would
be called upon more and more, to take care of these residents, and to attempt to keep them in the
area, and engaged in the community. He added that some of these individuals had built the
community of Mounds View, and he would not wish to lose their presence and input,simply because
there were no facilities in the City to accommodate them.
17C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 18
Council Member Marty stated the developers appeared to be doing their homework and their own
footwork, and were not asking for any special assistance or TIF from the City, and he thought that
was a positive factor.
Mayor Coughlin provided a picture of the proposed facility for the television viewers. He stated this
was an attractive building, which he thought would provide a good buffer between what is
considered the residential area, and the business area. He stated he thought this would be a much
better transition to that area than a video store, a gas station, or a liquor store.
Council Member Stigney stated that there had been discussion regarding a sidewalk around the
facility, and possibly at the front of the building, to provide pedestrian access for the overflow
parking. He inquired if this issue would be addressed at the Development Review. Planning
Associate Ericson stated it would. Council Member Stigney stated the Planning Commission had
discussed several times what would happen to the facility if the proposed use did not materialize,
and had wanted some assurance that it would not be turned into a half-way house, or a drug
rehabilitation type of situation. Planning Associate Ericson stated that Ordinance No. 639 was
drafted in such a way to address that issue. He stated there was some ambiguity in the Code at
present, in regard to the definition of nursing homes and similar group housing, in that the term
"similar group housing" had raised some questions as to the definition of the use. He stated the
Planning Commission and staff had proposed that the language of Ordinance No. 639 be amended
to indicate "Nursing homes and other elderly congregate housing." He stated the conditional use
permit that the Council would be approving for this operation would be specific to this operation,
in that it would be for a senior citizen assisted living facility, and not for a drug rehabilitation center
or anything of that nature. He stated as a result of amending this language in the Code, a drug
rehabilitation facility would not be allowed in the City. He stated, although they may wish to
consider this at some point in the future, there was no provision contained in the conditional use
permit by which it would be allowed. He stated he believed that Ordinance 639 sufficiently
protected the City, in the event that the facility is built, and a different use should come under
consideration. He stated the conditional use permit would allow the facility to be used for exactly
what was being proposed, and nothing else. City Attorney Riggs added that if the stated use did not
continue on at some point in time, the conditional use permit would cease to exist, and the matter
would have to come back before the Council.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the First Reading of Ordinance 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.
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Set the Public Hearing of Ordinance No 639 for 7:15
P.M., September 13, 1999, and to Direct Staff to Publish the Notification Pursuant to the
Requirement.
18C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 19
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Motion carried.
Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Council would also direct staff to prepare a resolution of
approval for the consideration of the conditional use permit at the next Council Meeting. Mayor
Coughlin stated this was the consensus of the Council.
C. Public Hearing to consider wetland alteration permit and the Introduction
(First Reading) of Ordinance 638, an ordinance vacating part of a drainage and
public utility easement over lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated Greg Peterson, representing Oakwood Land Development, was
requesting the City vacate a portion of a drainage and utility easement upon Lots 17 and 18 of
Edgewood Square, which is located to the north of City Hall, on Pinewood Circle. He stated a
similar request was made in 1997, before a previous City Council, for the partial vacation of the
easement, as well as a Wetland Alteration Permit. He stated the Council at that time, denied the
request.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this item was brought before the Planning Commission at their
meeting on August 4,and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council
that the request be denied.
Planning Associate Ericson stated this request was to allow for two single-family homes to be
constructed upon Lots 17 and 18. He stated at the time the plat was recorded, there was a drainage
and utility easement dedicated over the entirety of the two lots, and an adjoining third lot, under the
assumption that they were not buildable. He stated there were less clear definitions regarding what
constituted a wetland at that time, and the prevailing opinion was to base the definition upon a
specific contour and elevation. He stated, in this case, it was the 904- foot contour, which extends
across all three lots. He stated in order to approve the plat, Ramsey County Soil and Water
Conservation District, and the City Engineer, recommended that there be easements upon these lots,
which were dedicated to the public in perpetuity.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the lots no longer serve a purpose for drainage and utility. He
stated that a wetland delineation has been done on the subject properties, which indicates the
applicant's proposal would not impact the wetland, and that the construction would fall outside of
the wetland. He stated Rice Creek Watershed District had verified this delineation, and has issued
a permit for the proposal.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the consideration is whether or not there the easement presents
any public benefit. He stated upon speaking with the City Attorney, it was determined the City
Council is not necessarily under any obligation to vacate the easement, particularly if there is a
possibility that there is some present or future public benefit to be gained by retaining the easement.
I9C:\A DM IN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 20
He stated this factor could also be considered in terms of the buffer between the developed area and
the wetland.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the delineation indicates the proposed construction would fall
outside of the wetland, therefore, no impact or encroachment would be made to the wetland. He
stated there would be some filling of area that has been set aside as flood storage, however, the
applicant's plans indicate that they would create additional flood storage capacity on the back half
of one of the subject lots. He stated this proposal would replace 11,000 cubic feet of flood storage
capacity with 33,000 cubic feet of flood storage capacity. He stated in that regard,the City Engineer
had determined, there would be no impact to the water quality standards and water levels. He stated
this was an issue of whether or not to allow the construction of two houses upon the vacant land,
which acts as a buffer between the developed and undeveloped areas.
Planning Associate Ericson stated staff is seeking the Council's direction, based upon the Planning
Commission's discussion and recommendation on this matter. He stated there were two options
available. One option would be to vacate the easement, as the applicant has requested, and approve
the Wetland Alteration Permit. The other option would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of
denial of the request. He stated there was an ordinance presently before the Council, which would
approve the vacation of the easements, and would require two readings. He stated, in the event the
Council felt there was just cause to vacate the easement, a public hearing had also been set. He
stated that the First Reading of this ordinance could be held that date, if so desired. He stated the
other option would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of the vacation and Wetland
Alteration Permit request.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was present.
Annette Gazmarek, 7730 Edgewood Drive, stated her home was located north of County Road I.
She provided the Council with a picture of her neighbor's home, 7740 Edgewood Drive, which
indicated the flooding problem in that area. She stated she was aware that the problem did not
previously exist,however,the people that live down the road have recently sold their home, and that
having new residents in that area has contributed to the flooding problem. She stated the picture was
taken July 30, 1999, and indicates that the flooding occurs up to the neighbor's shed. She stated that
a small creek located behind the property turns into a lake every time it rains. She stated the new
homeowner's were very unhappy about the flooding problems. She stated her neighbor at 7740
Edgewood Drive has had his property re-graded and re-sodded, however, this did not solve the
problem. She inquired, in light of this type of flooding, how could they justify building two more
homes in that area. She stated the backyard of the home on the very edge of the proposed
construction was basically a swamp. She stated this house was vacant from the time she moved into
her home, 31/2 years prior, until 61/2 months ago. She stated she could not see how this proposal
would help this situation.
Kathy Gryzmala, 2374 Pinewood Circle, stated her home was directly across the street from the
proposed building site. She stated she purchased her home in 1992, and at that time, she contacted
20C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 21
the Rice Creek Watershed District, and inquired if they could purchase the subject property, for the
purpose of constructing a playground. She stated she received correspondence from the Rice Creed
Watershed District, which indicated the entire lot was subject to drainage easement, which meant
that no fill material or structures could be placed upon it. She provided the Council with a copy of
that correspondence.
Ms. Gryzmala stated she had obtained a copy of the plat map, shortly after moving to the property.
She stated this map contained the language "have caused the same to be surveyed, platted, and
known as Edgewood Square, and do hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever, the
drainage and utility easements, drive circle, and the road shown as the plat." She stated Marcellias
Haselius, the property owner, had signed this document, on April 15, 1983.
Ms. Gryzmala inquired why Mrs. Haselius was not present at the meeting. She stated she had
attended every other meeting regarding this matter. She stated that Mrs. Haselius had never spoken
openly regarding her feelings on the matter, and it was her understanding that it had just recently
come to her knowledge that she is the owner of the property and stands to make some money out of
it.
Lisa Gilpin, 2358 Pinewood Circle, stated that she had challenged the Planning Commission and
would challenge the Council to look at the area, and tell her where the wetland starts and where it
ends. She stated that this was not possible. She stated that during the school year, she spent a
number of hours volunteering, and speaking about the environment. She stated she believed if they
were going to tell the children about the importance of the wetland, it was their responsibility to
make their words stand for something. She stated rather than being willing to give up their
convictions, they should make their words mean something.
Barb Liukkonen, 2367 Pinewood Circle, stated she opposed this development. She stated, while
it is not in the wetland as delineated by the Soil and Water Conservation District and the Rice Creek
Watershed District, it is within the 100-foot buffer, therefore, to say there would be no impact to the
wetland, she believed was incorrect. She stated all of the oak trees in that area will have to be
removed to construct the houses, and the vegetation will be disrupted and destroyed. She stated the
natural drainage patterns would also be disrupted. She stated there would be an impact upon the
wetland, even if the buildings were not constructed within the official wetland delineation. She
stated they were within the 100-foot buffer, which is recommended to protect wetland areas.
Terry Lulf, 2365 Pinewood Circle, stated he was a new resident to the area. He stated his property
was adjacent to the proposed building site. He stated he had been affectionately dubbed the "Pit
Boy,"because of the pit in his backyard. He stated, in his understanding,his home had been vacant
for at least two years, and some of his neighbors indicated they were not sure if anyone would ever
be interested in purchasing the property. He stated the property currently meets his needs, however,
he was not in favor of the proposed construction,which would be adjacent to his property, and would
utilize another backyard pit. He stated he liked his home and neighbors as they are, and concurred
with the Planning Commission in their recommendation of the matter.
21C:AADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 22
Greg Peterson,representing Oakwood Land Development and Peggy Haselius,stated Mrs.Haselius
was not present at the meeting because, regardless of the outcome of this matter, she would still be
neighbors with those present, and would like to remain on friendly terms with her neighbors, as best
she can. He stated that Mrs. Haselius did not feel comfortable speaking in this environment.
Mr. Peterson stated when the plat was developed in 1982, Mrs. Haselius agreed to dedicate the lots
to the City for easement purposes, because the City and the County required that. He stated she, in
good faith, agreed to do that, as she believed there was nothing else she could do, and that they were
the experts and made the decisions. He stated, since that time, they have become better informed
in delineating wetlands. He stated that Rice Creek Watershed District had found that the subject lots
are not located in the wetland. He stated that it was not uncommon that a permanent decision has
been made, and upon the introduction of new facts, the decision is subsequently changed.
Mr. Peterson stated he understood the neighbor's argument. He stated there were, however, two
problems in this regard. He stated one problem was that they are not the landowner, and it was not
their land being discussed. He stated the other problem is that they are not wetland delineation
experts. He stated the neighbor's primary argument is that they like the property the way it is. He
stated he understood this, however, in his opinion, it was really a land use question, and inquired
how much right does a landowner have. He inquired, in light of these new facts, should Mrs.
Haselius have the right to sell her land. He stated Mrs. Haselius has been a resident of Mounds View
for 51 years. He stated he thought it was only fair to her to give her back what she had originally
agreed was wetland, in consideration of the new facts.
Mr. Peterson stated that he agreed that the flooding problem was not good. He stated, however, they
were proposing to create three times the existing flood storage capacity,which should assist with the
problem in that area.
Mr. Peterson stated when Mrs. Haselius dedicated the easements to the City, it was voluntary, yet
she felt she did not have a choice. He stated in order to develop her property, she had to do this. He
stated it was the City, the County and the Engineer's determination that these were wetlands. He
stated that now they know they are not. He stated the buffer zone argument is the most valid, as the
construction would be within the buffer zone. He stated he did not believe it uncommon for City
Councils and Planning Commissions to allow people to build within those buffer zones. He stated
he believed this matter was intrinsic to land use rights. He stated Mrs. Haselius paid taxes on the
subject property for many years, and when Good Value and Oakwood Land Development thought
they owned the land, they paid the taxes on it as well. He stated it has not been the City's property,
it is their property, which the City uses for drainage.
Mr. Peterson stated that they were requesting that Mrs. Haselius be allowed to sell her property. He
stated it was her property, and there is no wetland or water drainage issue, they were simply
requesting that Mrs. Haselius be allowed to sell her land.
22C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 23
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he would like to caution the Council regarding a similar
wetland issue, which had previously arisen. He stated the City had and a contractor had engaged in
a dispute regarding that matter, and he did not believe the City won that argument.
Ms. Gilpin stated Mrs. Haselius was present at the very first meeting they had, and fought against
the proposal. She stated all of the people present had purchased property in this area, and were told
that those lots would not be built upon. She stated the proposal would have an impact on them.
Mr. Peterson stated the reason Mrs. Haselius fought against the proposal the fist time, was because
she thought the City owned the land and was attempting to sell it to the developer. He stated they
thought they owned the land and were attempting to develop it, and when Mrs.Haselius learned that
she owned the land, she decided to sell it.
Ms. Gazmarek, stated she did not believe any of the residents present were attempting to take away
Mrs. Haselius' right to sell the land. She stated,what they were opposed to,was allowing her to sell
the land under the contingency that the developers have to build two houses on the property.
There was no further public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:54 p.m.
Council Member Stigney stated the developer had stated this proposal would not infringe upon the
wetland,however,it would infringe upon the buffer. He stated the purpose of the buffer was to have
something in between the improvement and the wetland, therefore he was very opposed to building
within a buffer. He stated the proposal to mitigate the wetland with ponds was not, in his opinion,
the most desirable manner of mitigation.
Council Member Stigney stated the people who purchased into the developed project, did so under
the assumption that the drainage and utilities easements would be there forever. He stated the
residents had the right to expect that this was what happens to the property. He stated in order to
develop the area,the property had to be set aside, for drainage and utility easements. He stated when
Mrs. Haselius originally sold the property, she sold it with that condition, forever. He stated that
nobody was preventing her from selling her property for whatever the market indicates. He stated
the market would be much less if they are not allowed to build houses upon it, and that is what the
developer would like to do. He stated he had no problem with Mrs. Haselius selling the property,
however, not for houses.
Council Member Stigney stated he was opposed to granting the vacation of the easements. He stated
he had been a member of the City Council in 1997, when the matter first came forward. He stated
he had heard Mrs. Haselius state that she gave the easement to the City and did not want any
construction upon that property, until she learned she was the property owner. He stated he
understands her position, however, he understands the residents present have rights as well. He
stated he believed the right that was granted to them when the bought their property was that there
23C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 24
would be a drainage and utility easement in that area forever, and therefore,he did not think it should
be vacated.
Council Member Marty stated the attorney indicated this proposal did not interfere with the wetland,
however, Chapter 1010 of the Municipal Code relating to the Wetland Zoning District states "any
work occurring within a wetland or the 100-foot buffer surrounding a wetland." He stated he agreed
with Council Member Stigney that the buffer area was there for a purpose. He stated as far as he was
concerned,the 100-foot buffer is the wetland. He stated the Council had received the minutes from
the Planning Commission meeting, and there was much good discussion there as well. He
commended the Planning Commission for their consideration, as well as Planning Associate Ericson
and Community Development Director Jopke for their presentation of the matter to the Commission.
He stated in 1981, the Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts stated the policy of the
Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation Districts supervisors is not to recommend the development
of wetlands better suited for storm water retention, and they recommend that Lots 17, 18, and 19
remain undeveloped.
Council Member Marty stated that Kathy Gryzmala had presented a good comment at the Planning
Commission meeting, and was glad she was present to reiterate that. He stated that he had no
problem with Mrs. Haselius selling her land, however, the land is not to be developed. He stated,
if Mrs. Haselius can find a buyer, that is her right, however, the land has already been set aside.
Council Member Marty stated that during the Planning Commission meeting, there was an inquiry
regarding the infringement upon the wetland buffer, which indicated that it was substantially within
the 100-foot buffer. He read the statement of Planning Commissioner Brian Kaden, as reflected in
the minutes of August 4, 1999,"Mrs.Haselius signed the document indicating these were permanent
easements, and in light of this,he assumed that both she and the developer were of the understanding
that the lots could never be developed by anyone."
Council Member Marty stated the Planning Commission made a motion to recommend to the City
Council that they not vacate the drainage and utility easements on Lots 17 and 18,Edgewood Square
(Pinewood Circle), and it was by unanimous vote.
Mayor Coughlin stated many might be aware that he is a building contractor by trade, and happened
to be in New Brighton when the 100-year rainfall event occurred. He stated he was installing a back
door on a house at the time, and saw the rain coming down. He stated he saw a nice soggy backyard
turn into 7 1/2 feet of water. He stated he had to stop installing the door, and help salvage people's
wedding albums and personal items. He stated water was literally pouring through basement
windows. He stated this situation affected six to eight houses in that area.
Mayor Coughlin stated one of the major contributing factors to that problem, was that this was
lowland, with a low spot across the street that the City of New Brighton had decided to develop,
even though it was marginal land. He stated this resulted in the water having no where to go other
than the next lowest spot, which happened to be these people's backyards, on the other side of the
24C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 25
street. He stated the city of New Brighton has spent a considerable amount of time and money
rectifying that situation, by installing a huge drain in the back of those people's yards, in order to
accommodate the storm water. He stated he had seen first hand what developing even marginal
buffer drainage area, can do to surrounding properties.
Mayor Coughlin stated he was not one to chain himself to a tree, and protest for environmental
causes, nonetheless,he considers himself somewhat of an environmentalist. He stated he had been
raised on a farm, and learned to appreciate the environment. He stated in the most basic sense,
wetlands means it is"wet land." He stated that you can discuss what plants and animals are there,
or its delineation off of a satellite photograph,but essentially, it is wet. He stated the more footprint
of buildings you put into that area, the more displaced the water becomes, and will go into someone
else's basement.
Mayor Coughlin stated he was a property rights advocate. He stated he has been all of his life, and
he did swallow hard in a situation where an individual owns property that they essentially cannot
develop, however,this is not a matter of the City taking this property. He stated this person signed
in good faith, signing over these parcels so that she could reap the development rewards of the other
properties, that some of the individuals present now own and occupy. He stated he did not view this
as "taking" in any sense of the word. He stated the Council must weigh the needs of the many
against the needs of the few. He stated the surrounding neighbors also have property rights,which
include not having their basements fill up with water, or having their contractor attempt to save their
wedding album the next time they have a major thunderstorm.
Mayor Coughlin stated, in driving by the area, he would concur it would be very difficult to
specifically delineate where the wetland starts and ends. He stated his heart goes out to the
individual who owns the property, and is required to pay taxes on it, however, they signed in good
faith, and he would stand by the decision made on April 15, 1983.
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Stigney. To Deny the Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance
No. 638, an Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Drainage Easement Over Lots 17 and 18, Block 1,
Edgewood Square.
Ayes—3 Nays— 1 Motion carried.
Council Member Marty commented he had driven by the wetland with his two sons, and thought the
area was beautiful.
D. Public Hearing Amending Chapter 202 of the Mounds View Municipal Code
Entitled "Public Improvements."
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 9.05 p.m.
25C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 26
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this item was in consideration of amending Chapter 202 of
the Municipal Code,pursuant to the recommendations provided by the Streets Policies Committee.
He stated staff had provided a report at the last Council meeting, which briefly outlined the possible
proposed changes in this chapter, which pertains to assessments. He stated staff has included the
proposed changes to the draft ordinance, as indicated in bold print. He stated that blank spaces have
been inserted for the percentages of street improvements, to include total reconstruction, overlays,
mill and overlays and recycle and overlays. He stated that verbiage has also been included relating
to the percentage of pavement assessed, percentage of curb and gutter assessed, the percentage of
an MSA street project assessed, as well as language regarding the assessment of improvements
performed on a County or State Highways. He read the proposed changes to Section 1, Subdivision
2 of the ordinance as follows:
a. The cost of street reconstruction shall be recovered by the adjusted front footage
method. The front footage rate shall be determined by dividing the project cost by
the total number of adjusted front feet in the project area, times the individual
adjusted front footage x one-half(%2). The assessments per adjusted front foot may
vary depending on the underlying zoning of a parcel. Assessments for residential
properties,which are on collector or arterial streets, (MSA) shall be assessed for
percent of the pavement surface equally divided by both sides of the street.
a.l. Residents requesting Curb and Gutter installation on a construction project will
be assessed percent of the total cost of the Curb and Gutter, which will
include engineering,additional removals,base and all other associated expenses.
a.2. percent of the turn back funds received from Ramsey County will be
applied to the new construction or pavement cost of the road that was received.
b. Assessments shall be determined by the adjusted front footage method at
percent to properties on both sides of the street. A mill and overlay to an
existing paved road will be assessed by the adjusted front footage method at
percent, to properties on both sides of the street. A recycle and overlay
to an existing paved road will be assessed by the adjusted front footage method
at percent to properties on both sides of the street.
c. Sidewalks are generally installed on the City's major streets,which will connect
several neighborhoods and community attractions in a logical pattern.
e. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main replacement will be assessed at percent.
f. Trunk sewer and water mains are usually designed to carry larger volumes of flow
than are necessary within an immediate property area in order to serve additional
properties beyond the area of their immediate placement. Therefore, 100 percent
of the cost of trunk improvements will be assessed on a unit basis to all
26C:AADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 27
properties within a district deemed to be benefited from the trunk
improvements.
j. In projects involving new street construction, and mill and overlays, mailboxes
will be grouped on gang posts in numbers logical to the spacing required. This
practice will insure the proper placement of the mailboxes, reduce potential
roadside hazards, and generally clean up the edge of the street. The cost of the
new posts and installation will be added to the project. Residents of overlays
and mill and overlays may request the new posts and installation, which will be
added to the cost of the project.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated one of the items recommended by the Streets Policies
Committee was to consider the existing design/width of the particular street section, the standard
by which future projects would begin. He stated this change would require a resolution amending
the resolution that earlier set the construction standards for all streets. He stated the total street
reconstruction, including curb and gutters shall be assessed. He stated staff indicated some type of
design on MSA streets, with all amenities in the street right-of-way to be paid for by MSA. He
stated if the street is a collector, and requires drainage, MSA would like to have curb and gutter
installed. He stated the pavement surface would be assessed, and the remainder of the cost would
be paid by MSA.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated another recommendation was to lower the percentage
assessed to the property owners from 50 percent to 20 — 25 percent. He stated the 50 percent
assessment was the same for water and wastewater main replacement / improvement, and the
reduction if this assessment would require an amendment to the ordinance that established the
current percentage.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff had received estimates from construction companies for
various pavement rehabilitation methods for the Council's consideration in determining the
percentages of assessments. He provided a brief outline of the estimates, noting that they are based
upon a street width of 28 feet, for average calculations, and the various strategies for rehabilitation
are recommended based upon the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). He explained if the PCI is
higher,the required amount of the pavement repair and preparation would be less, thereby lowering
the amount of the improvement. He stated that, in the event that rehabilitation is necessary, staff
would like to research undergrounding utilities. He stated this process could be assessed to the
residents at a certain percentage.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff had also received an estimate for lining existing sanitary
sewer mains within a project area. He stated this process would not correct any deficiencies or
defects in the residential service. He stated the cost would be $36.00 per lineal foot, for the total
width of the main.
27C:AADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 28
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that staff and Mayor Coughlin had discussed the
implementation of a wastewater intra-structure flat charge, as a means to reduce the assessment. He
stated the water and sewer trunk improvements would be assessed at 100 percent for the entire area,
and if the entire main required repair, all of the residents would be assessed. He stated currently,the
City is not responsible for water or sewer line repairs,with the exception of the impervious surface.
He explained if a resident's property was located on the same side of the street as the water main,
the cost for repair to that main would be less than the cost to a resident whose property was located
on the opposite side of the street. He stated that the water mains within the City are, for the most
part, in good condition, however, the system is getting older, and staff would like to find a way to
make the repair process easier for the residents. He explained that the implementation of a water
service charge to the entire community, at 3 to 5 dollars per quarter,would allow the City to assume
the entire responsibility for the water lines, from the main to the house.
Director of Public Works Ulrich stated, if the Council so desires, staff will draft a final copy of the
ordinance for formal approval, and the City Attorney will be consulted for the appropriate format
and language. He stated that staff requests the Council discuss the proposed amendments, and
provide input and direction as to the final percentages to be assessed on public improvements.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 9:21 p.m.
Mayor Coughlin stated he resided on one of the roads in question, and was in favor of this proposal.
He suggested a Work Session discussion to address the percentages to be assessed for public
improvements. He stated he would like this to be done correctly, and was in favor of approving the
First Reading, conditioned upon further discussion.
Council Member Marty expressed his thanks to Director of Public Works Ulrich for his report, and
remarked that he appreciated the bold type. He stated he would also like to bring this matter forward
for discussion at a Work Session, adding he thought these were good ideas, and merited further
investigation. He stated that a water line break could greatly impact a resident, and that he would
like to see something like insurance, similar to the service policies utilized by Northern States
Power, whereby the City could warranty the water system.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Defer to a Work Session for Further Discussion, and to
Approve First Reading or Ordinance 600, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 202, Section 202.09 f
the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled "Public Improvements."
E. Resolution 5364,Approving Agreement Between the City of Mounds View and
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local No. 232
City Administrator Whiting stated that this resolution provides the Council authorize the Mayor and
the Clerk Administrator to enter into the labor agreement with the City, and the Law Enforcement
Labor Services, representing the City's two police sergeants. He stated the negotiation of this
28C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 29
contract commenced well over a year ago, and pertained to the years 1998 and 1999, and will expire
in approximately 4 %2 months. He stated the language in the agreement had been mediated and
determined by an arbitrator, therefore, the City was now obligated to abide by the language and
conditions therein, so no modification can be made at this time.
City Administrator Whiting stated the resolution was essentially in keeping with the provisions
applied to work conditions in regard to such matters as pay and uniform allowance, as has been
agreed upon by the Union and the employees in general.
City Administrator Whiting stated he would attempt to answer any questions of the Council, and
would request Council approval of Resolution 5364
Council Member Marty requested clarification of Article 23, the Cafeteria Plan. City Administrator
Whiting stated this was in reference to options for health insurance, as provided to the employees.
Finance Director Kessel explained there were two different manners in which the Cafeteria Plan is
defined. He stated that an employee could take a portion of their salary, and set it aside in a pre-tax
plan, for daycare or un-reimbursed medical expenses. He stated the other option, was in the case of
a Single Health insurance plan, wherein the City allows the employee to select benefits, not to
exceed the cost allotted for Family Health insurance coverage, and any remaining balance is unused.
Council Member Marty stated it appeared this matter had already been agreed upon by the City, the
Union, and the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator's decision was binding.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Resolution 5364, a Resolution Approving the
Labor Agreement between the City of Mounds View and the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc.
(LE.L.S.), Local No. 232, Dated January 1, 1998 —December 31, 1999.
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Motion carried.
F. Consideration of Resolution 5360, a resolution authorizing abatement of a
nuisance vehicle located at 7656 Greenfield Avenue.
This Item was withdrawn at the request of the City Administrator.
G. Changing Space/Showers at MVCC.
Terri Blattenbauer, YMCA Program Executive, stated on August 16, the Parks and Recreation
Commission had a special meeting to develop a plan regarding how to maintain a safe environment
with the addition of showers and changing space at the Mounds View Community Center. She
provided the Council with three models of different facilities and how they manage their showers
and changing space. She stated the YMCA model represented nine branch facilities.
29C:AADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 30
Ms. Blattenbauer provided an outline of the proposed plan to achieve this goal, and continue to
provide quality programs, attract more users, and maintain a safe facility. She stated YMCA staff
would assure that the locker room space was locked during special events, such as teen nights,
family nights, etc. She stated supervisors and lead staff would monitor periodically, and use a check
off system for monitoring. She stated signs would be posted such as: "We ask you help us provide
a safe and clean environment. If you witness suspicious or behavior,please report to service
desk. Thank you!" She explained that the YMCA staff would use the windowed office areas as an
advantage and monitoring tool as well. She stated that during peak times and seasons it would be
possible to double staff the Community Center, which would assist in building circulation. She
stated one staff member would remain behind the desk and the other would act as a floater.
Ms. Blattenbauer stated they were presently working with a construction company, in regard to
lowering the costs, and had been provided with estimates for good quality amenities, however, not
necessarily the highest quality. She stated they have been informed that TIF funds are available until
the end of the year, and are interested in pursuing this option.
Mary Benz, 8335 Sunnyside Drive, stated the Parks and Recreation Commission had received
complaints regarding the lack of showers at the Community Center. She stated that this addition
would provide for the use of the facility during peak times, when children were not in the facility.
She stated the showers and changing space would be a good investment, which would allow more
use of the facility.
Mayor Coughlin stated, upon his first tour of the Community Center with Council Member
Thomason, he had noticed there were no shower facilities available. He stated that the safety
concerns were paramount to this proposal, and that he felt it would balance out the needs of the
community. He stated it was necessary that the proposal be economically viable.
David Jahnke, 2848 Eastwood Road, stated the original cost of the facility was 3.4 million dollars,
and had gone to 6.2 million dollars. He stated that this figure continues to grow.
Council Member Marty stated he had noticed the gymnasium had no shower facilities. He stated
the TIF funding was available to the Parks and Recreation Commission until the end of the year, and
suggested they speak with Finance Director Kessel in regard to the funding.
Finance Director Kessel stated that the Parks and Recreation fund were authorized, and required the
funds be spent, contracts entered into, or a plan is in place,prior to December 1, 1999. He stated the
TIF plan was very broad, identifying$20,000 for such uses. He stated the allocation of these funds
should be discussed.
Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the projected revenues and payback of the proposal.
He noted that there would be additional maintenance costs. Ms. Blattenbauer stated she was
uncertain regarding the payback figures. She stated that the facility currently utilizes one daytime
30C:\ADM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 31
cleaning person who has been included in the maintenance costs, and a nighttime cleaning person
who could be included if necessary.
Council Member Stigney stated that there would be additional costs for maintaining and operating
the facility, as well as heating, hot water, and ongoing costs. He stated he would require some
projections regarding the costs of the proposal. He explained the facility was originally designed
without shower facilities, as the Task Force had intended it to be utilized just by children, to keep
them off the streets.
Finance Director Kessel stated the Council should determine how they would like the building to
be utilized. He stated it would be unrealistic to expect less than a ten-year payback for the project.
Council Member Stigney stated the facility had been built in line with the St. Anthony facility, for
the support of the children. Ms. Blattenbauer stated they would like to get as much use out of the
facility as possible. She stated they could keep the facility for the use of children only, however,the
YMCA and Parks and Recreation Commission would like to see more use of the building. Council
Member Stigney stated that the more users they have, the more maintenance costs are incurred.
Finance Director Kessel stated if the facility was to be utilized to reach more of the public, for
example aerobics classes before work, etc., it would require the addition of showers. Mayor
Coughlin stated that part of the discussion should be deferred to the community. He stated that
originally,the volleyball group was intended to generate revenue for the Community Center,and that
proposal had fallen through. He stated would be good for the community to go through with the
addition of showers at the facility, and that more use of the facility would be positive. He stated he
had put himself through college as a custodian, and was aware that the cleaning of a small locker
room would probably require less than one hour of work. He stated, at most, it would require two
hours. Council Member Marty stated that he thought the lack of showers at the Community Center
was an inconvenience, and he would like to see the facility used more, as well.
Mayor Coughlin stated there was a narrowing window of opportunity to utilize the excess TIF funds
to finance the project, so that it does not come out of the City's general fund, or other dedicated
funds. He stated if they wished to proceed with the project, he would suggest acting sooner rather
than later. He stated that the Council could make a motion to direct staff to pursue the financing of
the showers through TIF.
Council Member Stigney stated he would like information regarding the additional maintenance and
staff costs. He stated he would like research regarding TIF financing, and noted the golf course was
also requesting TIF financing.
City Administrator Whiting stated comments and judgements had been made regarding how certain
matters took place at the golf course. He stated as a staff person who was involved, this was not
how these things took place. He stated the decisions at the golf course were made by the community
and elected officials, and could easily be misinterpreted at this point.
31 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 32
City Administrator Whiting stated there appeared to be a misunderstanding regarding the cost of
construction. He stated if it is attempted to be recovered by use of the facility, this would be
completely contrary to what has been done previously with the Community Center. He explained
the Community Center has been a capital investment project to this point,rather than a debt financed
project. He stated the entire approach has been to fund operations by the use of the facility,however,
the use of the facility would not pay for the proposed construction.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would request staff provide additional information regarding costs. He
stated this would be appropriate to be presented at a future Work Session. Council Member Marty
agreed.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Coughlin. To Direct Staff to Pursue TIF Financing For the Showers
/Changing Rooms at the Mounds View Community Center,and to Research an Architect and Obtain
Estimates for Construction, and to Provide Information Regarding the Additional Costs for Staff and
Maintenance of the Facility, and Bring the Proposal Back to Staff to Provide it in a Forum that
would Allow the Council to Move Forward.
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Motion carried.
H. Review of Staffing Positions for Housing Inspector, Planning Associate and
Assistant to the City Administrator.
Community Development Director Jopke stated at the last City Council Work Session, staff
discussed a number of options for filling the Housing Inspector position,which was left vacant upon
Steve Dorgan's departure to the City of Minneapolis, as well as upgrading other positions within the
City. He stated staff reviewed a number of options within the Community Development Department
regarding how to best fill the Housing Inspector position and others, and what changes they would
like to see, in light of the opportunity presented.
Community Development Director Jopke stated staffs recommended option was to hire a Code
Enforcement Inspector,who would handle the housing and code inspection portion of the Housing
Inspector position. He stated at the same time, they would upgrade the Planning Associate position,
to handle the program side of the Housing Inspector position, as well as other duties including
neighborhood liaison, GIS, website management, interne surveying, and community visioning.
Community Development Director Jopke stated the Council had requested information regarding
the financial impact of the proposed options, and he had provided that information in the
spreadsheets contained in the staff report. He stated the recommended option, hiring a
Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector at Level 1, versus the Step 5, that the previous Housing
Inspector position utilized, would result in a 2000 budget impact of a cost savings of$5,775. He
stated that upgrading the Planning Associate's position cost by $6,897 would lead to a total impact
of an approximate$1,100 increase on the 2000 budget. He stated the proposed 2000 budget was less
32 C:\A DM IN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 33
than the 1999 budget, therefore, the total impact under the recommended option would be
approximately$283, compared to the approved 1999 budget.
Community Development Director Jopke stated staff recommended approval of Option 3, and at
minimum,would request the Council authorize staff to proceed to advertise to fill the Housing/Code
Enforcement Inspection position.
Council Member Marty stated,upon reviewing the three options presented,he was in agreement with
staff's recommendation. He stated he had spoken with Planning Associate Ericson, Community
Development Director Jopke, and former Police Chief Ramacher, regarding the amount of time
involved in the enforcement of Code and nuisance violations. He stated,to his understanding, during
the summer this alone was a full-time job. He stated he believed this proposal would be the most
economical and efficient manner to provide housing and Code enforcement. He stated during the
winter and the slower months they could assist Planning Associate Ericson, who has taken the lead
in the areas of GIS and the internet surveys, etc. He stated in regard to salary and impact to the
budget, the recommended option represented the largest cost savings to the City.
Mayor Coughlin stated that a motion would be required to extend the meeting at this time, and
requested the meeting be extended, in order to deal with the remaining issues in a prompt manner.
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Marty. To Extend the Meeting to No More than One-half Hour.
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Motion Carried.
Council Member Stigney stated the Council was being requested to base their decision upon a
Stanton Survey of cities with the population of 10,000-25,000, and therefore, establish a salary
structure based upon that, not for a Planner,but for a Senior Planner. He stated they should not base
the salary on the average salary paid by cities of this population level. He stated, as he had indicated
since he was on the Council,that they should be regulating and establishing their salaries upon cities
which have comparable tax bases to the City of Mounds View, not on population. He stated that
population does not provide a proper comparison. He stated if they compared themselves to a city
of 25,000 population, with a tax base of the city of Edina, the City of Mounds View could not
compete. He stated they should be comparing against cities with a comparable tax base to Mounds
View,not population. He stated the Stanton Survey utilizes population to categorize different groups
in order to present their survey, and they caution, when using this for salary comparisons, to do so
with great care.
Council Member Stigney stated, in computing the salary ranges based upon the average for these
cities, staff had determined a Step 2 of$3,594. He stated a Planner in those 12 cities, would utilize
the salary range of$2,679 to$3,433, and therefore, they have exceeded that range already as a
starting point for this particular position. He stated requested staff to take a step back to see what
the City can afford to pay for this position, in relation to other cities.
33 C:\ADM IN\M INUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 34
Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the step increases as projected to the 2000 budget. He
stated this proposal was to start the position at a Step 2, and inquired regarding the following years.
He inquired where they were going with the salaries for the City. He stated, if they are offing job
functions from one employee and placing them on another,then the cost savings should go from one
to the other. He stated they should not necessarily grant someone up into a different bracket, and
make the City pay forever. He stated he was strongly opposed to what he had seen presented.
Community Development Director Jopke stated he had reviewed the Stanton Survey to base the
proposed salary range for the upgrading of the Planning Associate position. He stated the Housing
Inspector/ Code Enforcement position would remain at the existing level, which would provide a
cost savings from a Step 5 to a Step 1, however this would progress in future years. He stated that
staff acknowledged this, and had attempted to account for what would occur within the next two
years, in terms of step increases, in staff's analysis.
Community Development Director Jopke stated he had researched the Senior Planner level, as he
believed the functions requested of this position were consistent with those requested of Senior
Planners in other communities. He stated he did not take the average of the salaries within that
range,but decreased it by 5 percent, so they would be at the low end of the communities within that
range. He stated he had also looked at the communities in the Stanton Survey at the next level down,
basically for communities under 10,000, whose average is approximately the starting level that is
being proposed,but the range is not as high on the upper end. He stated he believed that based upon
what they were asking of this position, this was a fair level of compensation.
Council Member Stigney stated he would contend they should be basing this salary upon cities with
a comparable tax capacity,which is the City's ability to pay, and whether or not the City can afford
to compensate. He added if they are offloading a function from one position to another, he would
like to see this done with no additional cost effect at all. He stated he was firmly opposed to this,
and the City had been following this same procedure year after year. He stated he could understand
Community Development Director Jopke's point of view,however,they should not base the salaries
upon the population.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the salary at the step 2 level, and how many steps there
were. Community Development Director Jopke stated there were 5 steps. He explained the reason
he was proposing Step 2,was in consideration of a six-month probationary period at the Step 1 level.
Council Member Marty stated that Planning Associate Ericson had already completed his
probationary period. Community Development Director Jopke agreed, adding that he should be at
a Step 2 level, and that was why this was proposed.
Council Member Marty inquired regarding the top salary of this position at Step 5. Council Member
Stigney stated this would be$4,504. Council Member Marty stated that this salary was based upon
a Senior Planner position, and he believed Planning Associate Ericson with a Masters Degree in
Planning, has the educational qualifications of a Senior Planner. He stated they were asking more
34C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 35
technical services of him. He stated they could hire someone at a lower pay grade just to do "busy"
work.
Mayor Coughlin noted that with Option 3, Planning Associate Ericson would be designated as
Planner and Neighborhood Liaison. He stated it has been the focus of the Council, and himself
personally, to provide more dialogue with the people on specific issues. He stated it would be of
benefit to have a person with the personality and knowledge to work with the community. He stated
he had been contacted by numerous Planning Commissioners who provided unsolicited kudos and
praises to Jim Ericson, for his professionalism and competence in this area. He stated he was in
favor of honoring an employee who was doing excellent work, with compensation that reflects that.
Council Member Marty stated he agreed with this. He stated that Planning Associate Ericson did
possess very good public demeanor. He stated he was outgoing, and could relate to people.
Community Development Director Jopke stated Planning Associate Ericson was an excellent
employee, who should be rewarded for his efforts.
City Administrator Whiting expressed his appreciation to Community Development Director Jopke
for taking it upon himself to delve into what is considered a personnel matter. He stated typically,
they would have someone in personnel administration conducting some of this research. He stated
he would like the Council to understand that this represents an issue, which would resurface again
and again, as it had in the past. He stated that regardless of the policies or choices of the Council,
in regard to determining a salary plan or a comparative basis for employee salaries, the reality was
that Community Development Director Jopke has had to do this research. He added that he had also
been involved in this discussion to some extent.
City Administrator Whiting stated the reality of this situation is that staff thinks Jim Ericson is an
excellent employee, and they would like to provide some type of future for him with the City of
Mounds View. He stated there would be no reason to consider this proposal, if that were not the
case. He stated he believed there was an opportunity presented to further develop an employee who
the City has already invested in, and to structure a position for someone who is yet to be determined,
to come into the City, and perhaps start their career or continue it.
City Administrator Whiting stated during his three and a half years with the City,he had seen people
come and go. He stated these are people the City has invested in, and people they may choose to
further invest in to the City's advantage, as well as their own, due to their work skills and abilities.
He stated he did not believe there was a formula that could be arrived at which would allow this to
happen in a manner that would be acceptable for every situation. He stated when staff comes to the
City Council regarding personnel and personnel changes, they are knowledgeable regarding the
issues. He stated in this case in particular, he felt strongly that proposal should be approved. He
stated he was fully confident, that with the reconstruction of these positions, they would not only
being doing something good for Jim Ericson, but also for the Department, and for the City. He
stated if this was not the case, the proposal would not have been presented.
35C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 36
Council Member Marty stated he thought Jim Ericson had much ability and knowledge that he
would like to see the City take advantage of, rather than spending his time on menial tasks. He
stated he thought this was a good time to reevaluate these positions, as they are presented. He stated
Planning Associate Ericson had indicated that he and the former Housing Inspector in their
respective positions,were inspecting the same houses and properties, and could not understand why
this was necessary, however, that was what each of their job descriptions called for. He stated this
was a duplication of job services, and a waste of time and manpower. He stated this proposal was
a creative effort on the part of Community Development Director Jopke and his staff, to attempt to
streamline their department, and make it more efficient. He stated he would also like to commend
Community Development Director Jopke for his efforts.
Community Development Director Jopke thanked Council Member Marty for his comment. He
stated their intention was to do things in an efficient and effective manner, and he believed this
proposal would assist in that goal.
Council Member Stigney stated he had no problem with the concept being presented,regarding how
they wanted to merge their staff to do the jobs, and he would prefer they did not even talk about
specific individuals in this regard. He stated he was referring to the factors they were utilizing to
establish a salary range, a Stanton Survey, based upon population. He stated the information
indicated, after one year, the new salary would be $4,504, however, there would be additional 3
percent increases during that time.
Council Member Stigney inquired when the City would begin to look at how much these things were
costing. He stated it was his understanding that the largest cost to the City taxpayers was the cost
of City employees and their benefits,yet everything that he had seen indicated the City was spending
more and more. He stated he thought government should be researching ways to reduce costs.
City Administrator Whiting stated he agreed with Council Member Stigney in his comment that this
discussion of these matters should be separated from the individuals being considered for the
positions. He stated the points Council Member Stigney made were in regard to the policy of how
to establish a pay plan. He stated he did not disagree with this. He stated they had entertained this
discussion numerous times, and it was actually included within the budget discussion as personnel
costs,personnel, and staff assessment. He stated, however, they were going to have to make some
judgments as to how to proceed. He stated he would like to have a system in place, which would
make these types of discussions moot. He stated no matter what system they utilize, it would not
be so broad or all encompassing to allow them to deal with all of the specific situations they face,
and the opportunities they are presented with.
City Administrator Whiting stated, in regard to Cari Schmidt's position, and presently with Jim
Ericson's position,these proposals were mindful of the persons performing the job, and attempting
to structure the positions to take advantage of the employee's skills. He stated that many City
employees are never provided this opportunity,primarily because of the nature of their position, not
their abilities. He stated this was a good opportunity to rectify this situation. He stated Council
36C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 37
Member Stigney's points merited consideration during the upcoming budget discussion, however,
he believed the present recommendation was good.
Council Member Stigney stated if the Council utilized a basis of cities with a similar tax capacity
to the City of Mounds View, it would alleviate many of these problems. Mayor Coughlin stated he
was agreeable to utilizing a different tool,however, as a businessman with employees,he was aware
that there is a cost of doing business. He stated, although you may wish things to cost less,
sometimes they just don't. He stated he pays a couple of his employees in excess of what was being
proposed, and therefore, was well aware of the cost involved, both in salary and benefits, and in
future increases. He stated he saw it incumbent upon the Council to attempt to keep good people
with the City as long as possible, and attempt to utilize their talents and skills to the best advantage.
Council Member Marty inquired if staff had the means to determine cities with similar tax bases.
Community Development Director Jopke stated they did. Mayor Coughlin stated there were many
different tools with which to do this, however, it was a judgement call as to whether or not they
wished to do so. City Administrator Whiting stated they had done this with cities Council Member
Stigney had selected from around the state, and other questions had been raised regarding the merits
of that procedure. He stated there might be some other ways of calculating this,perhaps combining
tax capacity with population. He stated there were not very many communities with comparable tax
bases and population, however, it could be done with some effort, and sufficient staff
Council Member Stigney stated they had researched tax capacity, and cities in the metropolitan area
that were equivalent to the City of Mounds View in tax capacity and population. He stated the
population does not have much bearing, except in extreme cases, where the population is much
larger than the City's, and they require twice as much work out of an individual as the City does.
Mayor Coughlin stated tax capacity was a broad concept representing a variety of things in different
contexts, and it might take quite some time to define what it really represents. Council Member
Stigney stated tax capacity basically represents the base available to tax the residents' property,
which brings money into the City in which they live. Mayor Coughlin stated this, however, does
not take into account that the community may desire to move in a particular direction, or demand
additional services. He stated that regardless of the tax capacity compared to another city, at some
point, it is an unequal comparison, as they are their own City, and can set their own priorities.
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Marty. To Direct and Authorize Staff to Proceed with Option 3,
as Presented,Hiring a Housing and Code Enforcement Inspector, and Upgrading Only the Planning
Associate Position, and Utilizing the Payment Steps and Salary Levels as Presented to the Council
on Salary Budget Impact Options for Option 3 on the Reverse of the Staff Report.
Ayes—2 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Council Member Marty inquired if the Council was in agreement in regard to Option 3, however,
not the basis of establishing the salary as recommended. Council Member Stigney stated this was
37C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 38
correct. Council Member Marty inquired how much time staff would require to attempt to compute
the salary upon tax capacity, and base these decisions upon this criteria in the future, to prevent this
matter from coming up every time the situation arises.
City Administrator Whiting stated his assistant had traditionally done this research, and at this time,
he would require staff to do this. He stated he could attempt to find some other means of providing
some information, and the Council could make some judgement calls, however, there was more to
it. He stated that tax capacity was not the ability to pay taxes, or how much tax you can pay. He
stated they would require another meeting to explain this. He stated they should bring this up and
discuss it as best possible, during the budget discussion, and attempt to make a determination within
the next couple of months. He stated there were many factors to be considered.
Council Member Stigney stated he agreed, in that there were problems with using just tax capacity,
however,there were certainly more problems in utilizing just population, especially in light of using
populations that are more than twice the size of the City's.
Mayor Coughlin stated he would concur with City Administrator Whiting in that these were complex
issues, which were being made out to be rather simplistic. He stated he would rather take the
discussion to a deeper level than simply tax capacity, which if quizzed by a professor, they would
probably all fail in the definition of.
In the interest of time, City Administrator Whiting suggested the Council consider Items I, J, and
K, simultaneously. He stated they could approve the First Reading of Ordinance 640, and set the
Second Reading for the September 13 City Council meeting. He stated they could continue the
Second Reading of Ordinance 635, and set the Public Hearing for September 13, continue the
Second Reading of Ordinance 630 to the September 13 Council Meeting, and hold both Public
Hearings and the consideration of all three ordinances at that time.
Mayor Coughlin asked City Attorney Riggs if the Council could consider one motion for all three
items, or if they required separate actions. City Attorney Riggs stated that one motion would be
appropriate.
I. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 635, an ordinance to enact a new Chapter of
the Mounds View Code of Ordinances to Administer and Regulate the Location,
Relocation, Installation and Reinstallation of Facilities in the Public Right-of-
Way in the Public Interest.
J. First Reading of Ordinance No. 640, an ordinance amending Title 900, Chapter
902 of the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to driveways and repealing
provisions of Chapter 902 relating to street openings.
K. Continuation of Second Reading and approval of Ordinance No. 630, an
ordinance to enact a new chapter of the Mounds View Municipal Code of
38C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999
Regular Meeting Page 39
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.
MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Stigney. To Approve the First Reading of Ordinance 640, and Set
the Second Reading of Ordinance 640 for the September 13, City Council Meeting, Continue the
Second Reading of Ordinance 635, and Set the Public Hearing for Ordinance 635 for the September
13 City Council Meeting, and Continue the Second Reading of Ordinance 630, and Set the Public
Hearing of Ordinance 630 for the September 13 City Council Meeting.
Ayes—3 Nays—0 Motion carried.
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, September 7, 1999—6:00 P.M.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 13, 1999—7:00 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Trish Pearson
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
39C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC
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:
13712 through 13733 in the amount of$ 49,080.73
101024 through 101188 in the amount of$_524,783.58_
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED: $ 573,864.31
and has found said claims to be just and correct;
It was moved that the City Council of Mounds View hereby approve the
attached list of claims dated 09/14/99 by the vote ayes nayes.
Mayor
Clerk-Administrator
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:52:36 City of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 1
FM Entry - Invoice - Check Register
Ranges: Bank #: (A)
Check Date: (A)
Check #: (R) 13712 - 13722
Options: Check # Sort Only: N Format: 1 # of copies: 1
Bank # Check Date Vendor # Vendor Name Check # Type Amount
1 08/25/1999 W5260 Western Bank-Shannon Roepke 13712 R 149.64
08/27/1999 i0025 ICMA Retirement Trust - 457 13713 R 4,019.67
08/27/1999 m6321 Minnesota Benefit Association 13714 R 472.38
08/27/1999 r0896 Minnesota Child Support Paymen 13715 R 690.90
08/27/1999 m0658 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYS 13716 V 865.38
08/27/1999 p9200 Public Employees Insurance Pro 13717 R 14,847.93
08/27/1999 p9250 Public Employees Retirement As 13718 R 9,673.50
08/27/1999 p9250 Public Employees Retirement As 13719 R 112.50
08/27/1999 s3850 Sunrise United Methodist Churc 13720 R 14.00
08/27/1999 w5250 Western Bank 13721 R 120.00
08/27/1999 M0658 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYS 13722 R 432.69
Total Regular: 30,533.21
Total Manual: .00
Total Regular & Manual: 30,533.21
Total Voided: 865.38
Bank Total: 30,533.21
Grand Total: 31,398.59
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:54:10 City of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 1
FM Entry - Invoice - Check Register
Ranges: Bank #: (A)
Check Date: (A)
Check #: (R) 101024 - 101031
Options: Check # Sort Only: N Format: 1 # of copies: 1
Bank # Check Date Vendor # Vendor Name Check # Type Amount
1 08/19/1999 N6610 Northern States Power 101024 R 1,427.00
08/23/1999 A0010 AARP 101025 R 264.00
08/23/1999 B2600 101026 V .00
08/23/1999 B2600 U.S. Bancorp 101027 R 2,308.22
08/25/1999 E1550 Ebert Construction 101028 R 9,120.00
08/25/1999 W0555 H. T. Wakefield 101029 R 3,526.55
08/31/1999 M0155 M.C.P.E.F. 101030 R 300.00
08/31/1999 W0555 H. T. Wakefield 101031 R 11,750.00
Total Regular: 28,695.77
Total Manual: .00
Total Regular & Manual: 28,695.77
Total Voided: .00
Bank Total: 28,695.77
Grand Total: 28,695.77
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:07 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 1
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Ranges: Fund: (A)
Dept Id: (A)
Program: (A)
Vendor #: (A)
Invoice #: (A)
Schedule Journal #: (A)
Bank #: (A)
Cash #: (A)
Payroll Check Dates: (A)
Options: Print: A Sort: C
Report Format: 1 Print Ranges/Options: Y
# of copies: 1 Process Payroll: N
Total By Account: Y Page on Sort: N
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
13723 William Clark No FICA-Reemburse 08/26/ 102.57
Total for Chk 13723 102.57*
13724 ICMA Retirement Trust ICMA for 09/09/99 Payrol 4,019.67
Total for Chk 13724 4,019.67*
13725 Edward Jones Money Market Ded for 09/ 200.00
Total for Chk 13725 200.00*
13726 Law Enforcement Labor Union Dues for September 462.00
Total for Chk 13726 462.00*
13727 Minnesota Child Suppor Child Support for 09/09/ 690.90
Total for Chk 13727 690.90*
13728 MINNESOTA STATE RETIRE MN State and MN Mutual f 432.69
Total for Chk 13728 432.69*
13729 NCPERS Life Insurance PERA life Ins. for Septe 69.00
Total for Chk 13729 69.00*
13730 Public Employees Retir PERA for 09/09/99 9,768.67
Total for Chk 13730 9,768.67*
13731 Sedgwick E-SNL Dental and Life Ins. for 2,194.02
Total for Chk 13731 2,194.02*
13732 Twin City Federal Mort Twin City Federal for Se 488.00
Total for Chk 13732 488.00*
13733 Western Bank Savings for 09/09/99 120.00
Total for Chk 13733 120.00*
101032 MN Fall Maintenance Ex Fall Maintenance Expo 4360 170.00
Total for Chk 101032 170.00*
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:07 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 2
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101033 U. S. Postal Service Postage for Postage Mach 4160 2,000.00
Total for Chk 101033 2,000.00*
101034 Becky Madsen/dba Custo Janitorial Services 4730 1,740.00
Total for Chk 101034 1,740.00*
101035 New Brighton-Mounds Vi Chamber of Commerce Gala 4130 100.00
Total for Chk 101035 100.00*
101036 Robert Weiner Permit Overpayment 15.48
Total for Chk 101036 15.48*
101037 Walter Lehne Meter Refund-5139 Edgewo 40.00
Total for Chk 101037 40.00*
101038 Wilbert Haala Meter Refund 40.00
Total for Chk 101038 40.00*
101039 Lyle Nelson Meter Refund-2357 Sherwo 40.00
Total for Chk 101039 40.00*
101040 Larissa Roberts Event Refund 225.00
Total for Chk 101040 225.00*
101041 Mitch McGee Permit Refund 29.63
Total for Chk 101041 29.63*
101042 Kelly Geary Overpayment of Final Wat 45.71
Total for Chk 101042 45.71*
101043 Bernice Barnes Trip refund 5.00
Total for Chk 101043 5.00*
101044 Roger Grosse Meter Refund 40.00
Total for Chk 101044 40.00*
101045 A T & T Telephone Charges 4200 1.24
Total for Chk 101045 1.24*
101046 A Plus Carpet Cleaners Carpet Cleaning 4160 1,634.78
Total for Chk 101046 1,634.78*
101047 A V Solutions, Inc. A/V Equipment 4350 1,332.68
Total for Chk 101047 1,332.68*
101048 Ace Solid Waste, Inc. Bridges Golf Course 4901 844.77
Total for Chk 101048 844.77*
101049 Addie Lane Floral Flowers 56.45
Total for Chk 101049 56.45*
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:07 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 3
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101050 Airtouch 799-2590 4160 616.87
Total for Chk 101050 616.87*
101051 Allied Blacktop Co. Traprock, Latex 4470 72,079.45
Total for Chk 101051 72,079.45*
101052 Ancom - Maxtrac 300, Antenna 4415 997.80
Total for Chk 101052 997.80*
101053 American Office Produc Card Case 4160 21.94
Total for Chk 101053 21.94*
101054 American Steel Beer Cart Safety Screen 4900 60.44
Total for Chk 101054 60.44*
101055 The American Stores Air Valves 4465 48.67
Total for Chk 101055 48.67*
101056 Associates Commercial Lease Payment 4901 1,693.82
Total for Chk 101056 1,693.82*
101057 Bacon's Electric Repair Pump Motor 4900 2,154.98
Total for Chk 101057 2,154.98*
101058 Batteries Plus Battery 4900 47.91
Total for Chk 101058 47.91*
101059 Beisswengers Building Locks 4900 472.17
Total for Chk 101059 472.17*
101060 Best Buy Adapter, Cable, Microcas 4200 72.97
Total for Chk 101060 72.97*
101061 Biffs, Inc. Bridges Satellite 4900 1,422.84
Total for Chk 101061 1,422.84*
101062 Blaine True Value Hard Weed Whip repair 4900 172.08
Total for Chk 101062 172.08*
101063 Boyer Ford Trucks Car Repair 4465 68.18
Total for Chk 101063 68.18*
101064 Braun Intertec Corpora Maintenance Agreement 4470 1,500.00
Total for Chk 101064 1,500.00*
101065 Timothy Brennan DARE Program Supplies 4200 21.72
Total for Chk 101065 21.72*
101066 Bumper to Bumper Filters 4465 34.94
Total for Chk 101066 34.94*
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:07 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 4
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101067 Capitol Beverage Sales Beverages 4901 303.75
Total for Chk 101067 303.75*
101068 Carlson Tractor & Equi Tube Assembly 4465 31.73
Total for Chk 101068 31.73*
101069 Kevin Carroll Expense Reimbursement 4100 84.63
Total for Chk 101069 84.63*
101071 Cintas - 748 Uniform Rental 4900 977.64
Total for Chk 101071 977.64*
101072 City of Coon Rapids Supervisory Training 4160 679.25
Total for Chk 101072 679.25*
101073 Cottens, Inc. Oil Filter, Air Filter, 4900 28.70
Total for Chk 101073 28.70*
101074 Cushman Motor Company, Spacer 4900 143.64
Total for Chk 101074 143.64*
101075 Cy's Uniforms Uniform Items 4200 47.77
Total for Chk 101075 47.77*
101076 D. C. A. Inc. Flex.Spending Acct.-Augu 4160 150.00
Total for Chk 101076 150.00*
101077 Dalco Vacuum Cleaner Repair 4160 52.49
Total for Chk 101077 52.49*
101078 Davies Water Equipment Blue Speedcrete 4823 155.33
Total for Chk 101078 155.33*
101079 Diamond Vogel White Traffic LIP 4470 201.59
Total for Chk 101079 201.59*
101080 Determan Brownie, Inc. Gas Pump Hose & Nozzle 4900 389.76
Total for Chk 101080 389.76*
101081 East Side Beverage Co. Beverages 4901 425.25
Total for Chk 101081 425.25*
101082 Electronic Communicati Sprinkler System service 4350 194.00
Total for Chk 101082 194.00*
101083 Elegant Thymes Caterin Ferrin Wedding 6,714.65
Total for Chk 101083 6,714.65*
101084 Ericson, Jim Expense Reimbursement 4100 28.21
Total for Chk 101084 28.21*
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:07 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 5
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101085 Ess Brothers & Sons, I Manhole Covers 4823 2,609.25
Total for Chk 101085 2,609.25*
101086 Firstar Trust Co. 91A Water Bonds 4820 436.76
Total for Chk 101086 436.76*
101087 Flexible Pipe Tool Co. Proofer Replacement Skid 4823 165.33
Total for Chk 101087 165.33*
101088 Focus News Legal Notice-Amend.Chapt 4160 79.65
Total for Chk 101088 79.65*
101089 Foot-Joy Drawer Golf Merchandise 4901 94.13
Total for Chk 101089 94.13*
101090 Fridley, City of 7385 Pleasant View Dr. 4823 490.74
Total for Chk 101090 490.74*
101091 Friendly Chevrolet GEO Hose 4465 165.63
Total for Chk 101091 165.63*
101092 GE Capital IT Solution CD Kit 4160 47.77
Total for Chk 101092 47.77*
101093 Gerten Greenhouses, In Landscaping 4900 540.34
Total for Chk 101093 540.34*
101094 Goodin Company Ball Valve, Ell, Nipples 4823 78.14
Total for Chk 101094 78.14*
101095 W. W. Grainger Assembly 4900 434.20
Total for Chk 101095 434.20*
101096 Greenman Technologies Tire Recycling 4460 52.80
Total for Chk 101096 52.80*
101097 Griffin Petroleum Sery Gas Pump Service 4900 95.15
Total for Chk 101097 95.15*
101098 Haas - Jordan Company Golf Merchandise 4901 84.29
Total for Chk 101098 84.29*
101099 Hawkins Chemical Chemicals 4825 2,464.87
Total for Chk 101099 2,464.87*
101100 Hoffman Filter Service Oil Filter Recycling 4460 38.00
Total for Chk 101100 38.00*
101101 Hornungs Pro Golf Sale Golf Merchandise 4902 326.27
Total for Chk 101101 326.27*
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:07 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 6
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101102 Ikon Office Solutions Toner for Fax 4160 66.25
Total for Chk 101102 66.25*
101103 Innovative Images Mounds View Matters 4160 3,350.00
Total for Chk 101103 3,350.00*
101104 Insty Prints Printing-Certificates,Br 4901 68.42
Total for Chk 101104 68.42*
101105 Jerry Johnson Storage Cabinets 4350 100.00
Total for Chk 101105 100.00*
101106 Tracy Juell Notary Fee Reimbursement 4825 25.00
Total for Chk 101106 25.00*
101107 KI - Minncor Space Planning 4180 691.51
Total for Chk 101107 691.51*
101108 Kath Auto Parts & Mach Radiator 4465 436.00
Total for Chk 101108 436.00*
101109 Kennedy & Graven Airport Legislation 4100 15,217.90
Total for Chk 101109 15,217.90*
101110 Knox Commercial Credit Wood Chisel Set 4470 272.05
Total for Chk 101110 272.05*
101111 League of Minnesota Ci Hammerschmidt Claim #906 4901 1,323.29
Total for Chk 101111 1,323.29*
101112 League of Minnesota Ci Insurance 4900 24,554.00
Total for Chk 101112 24,554.00*
101113 Lesco, Inc. Fertilizer 4900 732.03
Total for Chk 101113 732.03*
101114 Lifetouch NSS Sport League Photos 4351 1,164.00
Total for Chk 101114 1,164.00*
101115 Lightning Printing Brochures 4730 107.88
Total for Chk 101115 107.88*
101116 M.A.M.A. Luncheon Meeting 4130 16.00
Total for Chk 101116 16.00*
101117 MCI Worldcom Telephone Charges 4160 137.19
Total for Chk 101117 137.19*
101118 M.T.I. Distributing Co PVC Piping 4900 1,489.62
Total for Chk 101118 1,489.62*
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:07 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 7
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101119 Mail Boxes Etc. Shipping to Cues 4823 310.18
Total for Chk 101119 310.18*
101120 Materials Management D Membership 4415 350.00
Total for Chk 101120 350.00*
101121 Menards Mailbox Posts 4470 286.59
Total for Chk 101121 286.59*
101122 Metro Legal Services, Del. to B.Long 4100 10.00
Total for Chk 101122 10.00*
101123 Metrocall State Display Service 4200 15.40
Total for Chk 101123 15.40*
101124 Micron Government Comp Computer Equipment 4100 4,385.86
Total for Chk 101124 4,385.86*
101125 Midwest Asphalt Corpor Asphalt 4470 3,916.47
Total for Chk 101125 3,916.47*
101126 Midwest Coca/Cola Beverages 4901 1,413.81
Total for Chk 101126 1,413.81*
101127 W. B. Miller Edgewood Drive Realignme 4470 233,428.73
Total for Chk 101127 233,428.73*
101128 Minnegasco 8290 Coral Sea St. 4901 25.58
Total for Chk 101128 25.58*
101129 Minnesota Department o Water Connection Fee 4,065.00
Total for Chk 101129 4,065.00*
101130 Minnesota Golf Assn., Memberships-Kulsrud,Olso 4901 45.00
Total for Chk 101130 45.00*
101131 Minnesota Golf Cars, I Brush & Screw Set,Filter 4900 202.12
Total for Chk 101131 202.12*
101132 Mizuno USA, Inc. Golf Merchandise 4901 144.85
Total for Chk 101132 144.85*
101133 MnAPA Conference Registration- 4180 280.00
Total for Chk 101133 280.00*
101134 Municilite Reflec. 4462 23.86
Total for Chk 101134 23.86*
101135 NameBank Community Center Mailing 4350 1,255.86
Total for Chk 101135 1,255.86*
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:08 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 8
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101136 Nike USA, Inc. Golf Merchandise 4901 222.75
Total for Chk 101136 222.75*
101137 North Country Ford Car Parts 4465 20.38
Total for Chk 101137 20.38*
101138 Northern Tool & Equipm Lawn Tractor Parts 4900 28.82
Total for Chk 101138 28.82*
101139 Northern Sanitary Supp Floor Mat 4160 2,725.58
Total for Chk 101139 2,725.58*
101142 Northern States Power Lakeside Park Nite Light 4350 10,399.41
Total for Chk 101142 10,399.41*
101143 Nu Way Development, In Driveway Replacement 4823 800.00
Total for Chk 101143 800.00*
101144 Office Depot Paper for Credit Card Pr 4901 18.81
Total for Chk 101144 18.81*
101145 Pace Analytical Well Testing 4825 77.00
Total for Chk 101145 77.00*
101146 Perfect "10" Car Wash Car Wash 4200 7.40
Total for Chk 101146 7.40*
101147 Pitney Bowes, Inc. Maint.Contract-Postage M 4160 489.00
Total for Chk 101147 489.00*
101148 Plaisted Companies, In Topdressing Sand 4900 1,104.70
Total for Chk 101148 1,104.70*
101149 Pomp's Tire Service, I Tire Repair 4900 113.41
Total for Chk 101149 113.41*
101150 Printmaster Printing Printing-Bldg.Permit App 4180 259.17
Total for Chk 101150 259.17*
101151 R.C. Identifications, ID Cards 4200 9.59
Total for Chk 101151 9.59*
101152 Rent All Minnesota Hedge Clipper Rental 4360 34.35
Total for Chk 101152 34.35*
101153 James L. Reynolds Arbitrator 4160 375.00
Total for Chk 101153 375.00*
101154 River Junction Tree Se Tree & Stump Removal 4380 1,134.20
Total for Chk 101154 1,134.20*
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:08 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 9
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101155 Roberts Off 10 Bar Services 1,390.77
Total for Chk 101155 1,390.77*
101156 Royal Tire - Kampa Tir Tires 4462 212.79
Total for Chk 101156 212.79*
101157 City of St. Paul Asphalt 4470 2,840.69
Total for Chk 101157 2,840.69*
101158 St. Paul Pioneer Press Subscription 4901 49.01
Total for Chk 101158 49.01*
101159 Schaefer Hardwood Floo Gym Floor recoating 4350 1,750.00
Total for Chk 101159 1,750.00*
101160 Science Museum of Minn Museum Admissions 4351 200.00
Total for Chk 101160 200.00*
101161 Sensible Land Use Coal Seminar 4180 40.00
Total for Chk 101161 40.00*
101162 Short-Elliott & Hendri TH 10 Turn Lane 4470 2,583.71
Total for Chk 101162 2,583.71*
101163 Shred-It Shredding 4200 49.95
Total for Chk 101163 49.95*
101164 Snyders Film Processing 4180 15.65
Total for Chk 101164 15.65*
101165 Spalding Golf Merchandise 4901 40.48
Total for Chk 101165 40.48*
101166 Spring Lake Park Lumbe Stakes 4470 335.89
Total for Chk 101166 335.89*
101167 Stanway Excavating, In Haul Class 5 4900 4,320.00
Total for Chk 101167 4,320.00*
101168 State Chemical Manufac Installed Faucet 4901 607.91
Total for Chk 101168 607.91*
101169 Superior Special Servi Fluorescent Lamps 4460 26.51
Total for Chk 101169 26.51*
101170 Surplus Services File Cabinets 4823 63.25
Total for Chk 101170 63.25*
101171 Sun Newspapers Ad for Asst.to City Admi 4160 136.00
Total for Chk 101171 136.00*
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:08 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 10
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
101172 Sysco Food Services of Franks,Chicken,Chips,Sal 1,961.72
Total for Chk 101172 1,961.72*
101173 T.S.E., Inc. Janitorial Services 4350 1,400.00
Total for Chk 101173 1,400.00*
101174 Time Saver Planning Comm.Mtg.08/18/ 4180 862.50
Total for Chk 101174 862.50*
101175 Titleist Drawer Golf Merchandise 4901 61.87
Total for Chk 101175 61.87*
101176 U. S. Filter Distribut Box Top Sections, Plugs, 4823 442.70
Total for Chk 101176 442.70*
101177 Michael Ulrich Mileage Reimbursement 4823 51.60
Total for Chk 101177 51.60*
101178 U. S. West 780-0720-KFAN Remote 4901 1,239.38
Total for Chk 101178 1,239.38*
101179 U. S. West Communicati 784-1305 4360 39.76
Total for Chk 101179 39.76*
101180 U. S. West Communicati Listen Only Voice Mail 4200 94.70
Total for Chk 101180 94.70*
101181 Viking Automatic Sprin Sprinkler System testing 4160 300.00
Total for Chk 101181 300.00*
101182 Viking Electric Parts 4823 394.69
Total for Chk 101182 394.69*
101183 Warner Industrial Supp Paint 4460 83.20
Total for Chk 101183 83.20*
101184 Wenck Associates, Inc. Professional Services 4823 11,993.33
Total for Chk 101184 11,993.33*
101185 Western Bank Savings Bond-Zwieg 4420 100.00
Total for Chk 101185 100.00*
101186 Charles Whiting ICMA Registration Reimbu 4130 580.00
Total for Chk 101186 580.00*
101187 Y.M.C.A. July - Sept. Contract 4350 39,270.00
Total for Chk 101187 39,270.00*
101188 Ziegler, Inc. Caterpillar Repairs 4465 170.50
Total for Chk 101188 170.50*
Date: 09/09/1999 Time: 11:48:08 Operator: Marge Norquist
Page: 11
City of Mounds View
FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills
Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount
Grand Total 518,645.33*
Item No. A
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September 13, 1999
Type of Business: Consent
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: Setting of 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, Requested by Don Mackeben.
Date of Report: September 8, 1999
Ordinarily I do not provide the Council with a staff report when setting a public hearing date,
however because this item will not be before you at a worksession prior to the public hearing, I
thought you may want a little background information. If the Council has any questions regarding
this item, feel free to remove it from the Consent Agenda for further discussion or call me prior to
the meeting.
Discussion:
The applicant in this case, Mr. Mackeben, is requesting that the Council approve an addition to
his garage at 8011 Sunnyside Road. The existing garage is 720 square feet and Mr. Mackeben
would like to add an additional 320 square feet to the back side of the garage for a work area/
hobby shop. All together, the garage after the expansion would be 1,040 square feet, which is
well below the maximum allowed and less than the footprint of the house, which is approximately
1,400 square feet. The garage currently meets all setbacks, as would the addition. A site plan and
location map are attached for your reference.
This request will be heard by the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 15, 1999, at
which time staff will be recommending approval of the CUP.
Recommendation:
Set the 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, as requested by Don Mackeben.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
7r.--, , . 4,,,,,
IF
City of Mounds View
Location Map
mum Immo milio 1 .■ ....
1.....:11...11.1.111.1 MIIILI :III
i Ir--11 _- 1 litiliti in i
1.
_r_ilia-A
ow III - I If
- I I I I I I ► Uh1"I ' ■- i ErVIm
� � MI
i1 iIFQ: f
_ 3:"n";z. ,..z_,it — m•
^f,<<imam 4' WI; _� 8011 Sunnyside Road - =
t
, Egli.NI 1 1 ■liii■ 1.:. .1 l.. I �I J I I I L "
so ��al simmi. E. ■II El ,ra yEl
11 ■■■■■■ ■ ♦ �� M■ — R.
6.11111111-mmE_:1.2 _ !._, _ ■111 ,
M. -■• , .■1111►,
Mil
III Ill.mi
rriI i � ' 1 � 1 STN\ F5IPMI !L1
, r, iiiiiirlt,
Don Mackeben
8011 Sunnyside Road
• _IIII. � -11111_ -� Y
s J�....0 70.1 ® Conditional Use Permit (Oversized Garage)
11.rimillli =r ®®'
iIlu::19�,W� P: _ sl_ 1:_,111_1°I Planning Case No. 569-99
Illi:_- ,,.111,
Imo
_ )?t".4,1._.114 yg ,.• 11111111 11111111111'N _ ' 'lIllliIig l,lllllllllllli __� 1-1 Iliii111111'llll Minn`�_�� = nn11 m mwnuuuu
I 'I�_— IIII Iiu nl
3.41;. ♦ u 111111111111{111
,II_� "`� •• :' 1;,' _ -'`=� _ 8011 Sunnyside Road
..1111.- `0
,_ ..= ...,,,
u:;:�_rut: ... ►. .•�.1 �lmmiuml; Properties Within 350
=Eat_m ' 3• MIIIIIIIIII
MM ma' .IIIIIIIIII
�Illli 111111e:1�= ► `', IIIIIIIIIIIIIGI _
�IIIIIIIIIII
wpm�'' SII=' �';;iiiirl ��
i7 '1'��
a'=
H1k!� k)
!,, ICA
Pat
mut
II a
0".".
N /
-4x i A
1 f 1
......."..................... f
I i
• i
9 i I
a
I
1
.P 1
1 1 1 l
I.. ;
, 1
; 1
1 4
1 1
1
P )
4 I ,
I 1 I
1 1.9
: 1 ...-..,
i ‘ 1
i. C...
1 1
. 1. (V)
; 1 .-.....,.
1 3 i i
i 1
; 1 I 1
. , t
1 ti i/
1
1
i i
1
i
‘ '
I i
62 -- ' 1
-/ 1
1 .. 1 0
/ i Ci
IV , 1
p 0 itC.141, I 1:3
-;,
...... ,
1 .6 4 ,
7
i I
____ i
i k
1
7 I C'1/
1 ),--1 4) k...1—,..0 . C KI-- 51 1;
c,( __f 4•;? --i if a
, 4
,
1 1
It 1 1 I I \I
i t _ i---------;-
'1 4 .....———• ... ,
1 i
,,i,N,
i 1 1 P
, f
i f
i g
1 1
( f.
H
1 11 ,
I
1
/ y,Sa ,11,2 .- Rt) 1 I
'
I ,
1 i f
t ) '
i „ • i
1 f\/ T.. 1
1 ,
'/
1 ..‹....-----,---- -,--„,..-------------... 1,e5 I - •
I
Item No. 17 ,Q
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 13, 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.
Excavating
Julian M. Johnson Construction Corp. -New
General (Commercial)
Rayco Construction, Inc. -New
HVAC
Modern Heating & Air Conditioning - Renewal
Royalton Heating& Cooling -New
Roofing
Todd Westphal Roofing(State Exempt) -New
Sign
Attracta Sign -New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No. IC
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September13, 1999
Type of Business: P.H.
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
Title/Subject: 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
Date of Report: September 9, 1999
BACKGROUND
The City Council asked that the staff and Planning Commission continue to look into and make
recommendations concerning ordinance amendments to the sign ordinance to allow signs in the
PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreational and Preservation zoning districts.
The current code does not list any permitted signage or standards in either of these districts. The
draft ordinance allows signs consistent with neighborhood business districts and with the
pedestal sign requirements in Section 1008.01 Subdivision 6 in the PF and CRP districts.
Signage allowed would include 100 square feet of signs on the building and a 340 square foot
pedestal sign for each street frontage. If the site has more than 100 feet of frontage an additional
100 square foot pedestal sign would be allowed. Any pedestal sign which is within 100 feet of a
single family residence cannot exceed 40 square feet, however. This is open for discussion. The
amount of signage allowed may be more than necessary.
The existing signage at parks in a neighborhood setting appears to range from 18 to 20 square
feet total sign area while the main City Hall sign is approximately 128 square feet in area. The
total freestanding signage at the Community Center appears to be approximately 90 square feet.
Signage at the golf course has been at times as much as 130 square feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission considered this matter on August 4, 1999 unanimously approved
Planning Commission Resolution No. 592 that recommends approval of ordinance 637.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing on this matter and give first
reading approval to the attached Ordinance No. 637. If the City Council gives first reading
approval to the ordinance, second reading will be scheduled for the September 27, 1999 City
Council meeting.
(6'61-
c
74-e-
Rick Jopke, Com nity Development Director
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\CITYCOUN\CCRESORD\913 99.rpt.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 592-99
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO.
637; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED SIGNAGE IN PF PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND CRP CONSERVANCY,RECREATION,PRESERVATION ZONING
DISTRICTS; PLANNING CASE NO. SP073-99.
WHEREAS, Section 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code sets standards for signs and
billboards in the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 1008, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code does not list
any permitted signage in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreation, and Preservation
zoning districts; and.
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that signage is necessary
and desirable in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy,Recreation, and Preservation zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed Ordinance No. 637, an
ordinance amendment pertaining to permitted signage in PF Public Facilities and CRP Conservancy,
Recreation, Preservation zoning districts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends City Council approval of Ordinance No. 637, an ordinance amending Chapter 1008,
Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to permitted signage in PF Public
Facilities and CRP Conservancy, Recreation,Preservation zoning districts.
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 4th day of August, 1999.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Attest:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP069-99\ORD629.RES
ORDINANCE NO. 637
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008(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
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1008.08, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby
amended by adding the following new paragraphs m and n. The proposed additions are underlined and
italicized and deletions . • • •. • ' ••,respectively,to read as follows:
m. PF Public Facilities District:Signs not exceeding 100 square feet total per building. In
addition pedestal signs are allowed in accordance with Section 1008.01, Subdivision 6 except
that no permit shall be granted for any pedestal sign of more than forty(40) square feet within
one hundred feet(1009 of any single family residence. Such signs shall identify and relate to the
activities that are intended to occur on the site.
n. CRP Conservancy, Recreation, Preservation:Signs not exceeding 100 square feet total per
building. In addition pedestal signs are allowed in accordance with Section 1008.01, Subdivision
6 except that no permit shall be granted for any pedestal sign of more than forty(40) square feet
within one hundred feet(1009 of any single family residence. Such signs shall identify and relate
to the activities that are intended to occur on the site.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty(30)days after its publication in the official
City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of
1999.
Dan Coughlin,Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\637.0RD
Item No. JO A
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September 13, 1999
Type of Business: CB &PH
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: 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.
Date of Report: September 8, 1999
Background:
This item was discussed at the Council's last regular meeting on August 23, 1999, at which time
staff was directed to set the public hearing for the introduction of Ordinance 639, an ordinance
which clarifies the language pertaining to nursing homes and similar uses within the R-4 zoning
district.
This ordinance was 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.
Discussion:
This ordinance proposes two changes to the Zoning Code. First, in place of the heading,
"Nursing homes and similar group housing," the Code would be amended to read, "Nursing
homes and other senior congregate housing." This would serve to clarify that only senior
housing is being considered, rather than the other possibilities contemplated by"group housing".
Second, this ordinance puts into place a specific guideline pertaining to the parking requirements
for this type of use, based upon the number of beds plus the number of employees on the busiest
shift. This differs from a flat number of spaces required currently, regardless of the level of
service provided or number of employees per shift.
Recommendation:
Introduce the first reading of Ordinance 639, a ordinance amending Chapters 1109 and 1110 of
the Mouinds View Zoning Code.
Cj UNA >12 0411
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\ORD639.1 ST
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
italicized, respectively, to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Nursing homes and other senior congregate housing but not
including hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions; provided, that:
a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this District and are
screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title.
b. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02,
subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-29-96)
c. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be fenced
and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. (Ord. 590,
11-29-96)
d. The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to
accommodate traffic which will be generated.
e. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance
with the Mounds View Sign Code.'
f. All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and all required
operating permits are secured.
g. One off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title is provided.
h. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and
satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
i. The required parking ratio shall be one stall per employee on the busiest shift,plus
one stall for every three beds or fraction thereof
Ordinance 639
Page 2
SECTION 2. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty(30) days after its publication in the
official City newspaper.
First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 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\COMDE V\DE V CASES\559-99\639.0RD
DATE: September 8, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Terri Blattenbauer
YMCA Program Ex cutive
RE: Requested information on the MVCC showers/changing rooms
As you know, the Parks & Recreation Commission and YMCA staff at the Community
Center are anxious to pursue construction of the addition of showers/changing rooms.
The following is information requested by you at the August 23 Council meeting, which
is anticipated with the new addition:
• Additional projected revenue: Conservatively from additional in-house and
Minnesota Sports Federation sponsored tournaments, and early morning and
noon hour usage. $5,610 (first year).
• Additional projected expense: Cleaning/maintenance, supplies, and water.
$7,500 (first year).
Within 2-3 years, I anticipate even more programming as this will enhance our facility
and truly make it more appealing to the adult market. I would expect that in subsequent
years that revenue would exceed$10,000.
I have contacted two architects to learn of additional fees to the project. Wold Architects
& Engineers estimated$4,000 less than WAI, who did the original work with the
building of the Community Center. Wold Architects are reputable as the firm involved
with projects at City Hall. The additional fee would not exceed$12,000. It is my
recommendation to hire Wold Architects&Engineers for this project.
At this point, a cost estimate provided by a plumber and construction company totaled
$111,300, however, I anticipate your approval to immediately move on to the bidding
process. A cost of approximately$300 should be allowed for the advertising.
I will be involved in a meeting on Monday, September 13 to discuss usage of Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) for this project.
If you have questions regarding the addition of showers/changing areas to the
Community Center,please call me at(612)717-4042.
RESOLUTION NO. 5370
Authorize use of Tax Increment Financing for Shower& Changing Rooms at Community
Center and Authorize Hiring of Architect,Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Bidding of
Project.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
County of Ramsey
State of Minnesota
WHEREAS,the City constructed a Community Center financed with Tax Increment Financing;
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Community Center would be more functional with
showers and changing facilities;
WHEREAS,the City has prepared preliminary plans which indicate that there is adequate space in the
storage area on the east side of the gymnasium which could be converted to showers and a changing area
for approximately $112,000 plus architect fees; and
WHEREAS,the City has obtained proposals from two architectural firms and the lowest responsible
bid appears to be from Wold Architects and Engineers at a fee of$12,000.
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that City
authorizes the use of up to $130,000 of Tax Increment Financing to add men's and women's showers
and changing areas to the Community Center.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to enter
into a contract with Wold Architects and Engineers to prepare plans and specifications for said project,
advertise for its construction, and to prepare an evaluation the bids received at a fee not to exceed
$12,000.
Said resolution was declared to have been duly passed and adopted this 13th day of September, 1999.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
City Administrator
•
Item No. /0 F
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September 13, 1999
Type of Business: C.B.
WK.• Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda; CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
MNIMENF
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Woodcrest Park Mitigation Project
Date of Report: September 9, 1999
Staff received bids on Thursday, September 9, 1999, for the Woodcrest Park Mitigation Project.
Staff and SEH will review the bids and provide Council with a recommendation for award at the
meeting Monday night.
Michael Ulrich, irector Public Works
Item No. /6 6'
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September 13, 1999
Type of Business: Council Business
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 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.
Date of Report: September 10, 1999
Background:
This request is required due to the fact that the east half of the subject lot is within an established
wetland and floodplain area. City Code Section 1010.08 establishes that any work occurring
within a wetland zoning district--which encompasses the wetland itself as well as a 100-foot
buffer, requires either a buffer or alteration permit. For this lot, the buffer line extends up to the
street. As is the case with many of the lots along the east side of Pleasant View Drive, 6991
Pleasant View falls completely within the wetland zoning district.
Discussion:
6991 Pleasant View Drive was purchased by the City of Mounds View through its Housing
Replacement Program in January of 1999. The existing home was demolished in April and the lot
restored in preparation for another home. Vista Construction won the right to build on this lot
and is eager to begin, having submitted building plans to the City.
Because of the presence of the wetlands, a buffer permit is also required. The actual wetlands will
not be impacted by this construction, as the building site is on a bluff and the wetlands--a creek
and the surrounding lowlands--are at the bottom of the bluff, an elevation difference of as much as
15 feet. (See the attached contour map of the area.)
The attached survey shows the drainage flows for this lot, as indicated by the arrows. The house
will be situated toward the back of the elevated bluffed area to allow for walkout access from the
home. There is not expected to be any degradation to the wetland or any substantial increase in
the amount of stormwater runoff generated from this new home.
Standards for Approval:
No permit shall be issued unless the City finds and determines that the proposed development
complies with the following standards:
Vista Construction Buffer Permit
• 6991 Pleasant View Drive
September 10, 1999
Page 3
(7) The proposed action shall not cause storm water runoff from the development to take
place at a rate which would exceed the rate or volume of runoff as anticipated by the
City's Local Water Management Plan.
The rate and volume of stormwater runofffrom this house will not exceed that which was
anticipated by the Local Water Management Plan.
(8) The quality of water infiltrated to the water table or aquifer shall remain substantially,
as determined by the City, unchanged by the alteration of the site.
No changes are anticipated to the quality of the water in the water table with this request.
(9) No part of any sewage disposal system requiring on-land or in-ground disposal of
waste shall be located closer than one hundred feet(100') from the wetland. All on-land
or in-ground sewage disposal systems shall meet criteria set out in Minnesota Rule 6,
MCAR 4.8040,Individual Sewage Treatment System Standard.
This home will be connected to the City's sanitary sewer service.
(10) Waste which would normally be disposed of at a solid or hazardous waste disposal
site or which would normally be discharged into a sewage disposal system or sewer shall
not be, directly or indirectly, discharged to a wetland.
This standard will be observed.
All of the above standards, while drafted for more specifically for wetland alteration permits, are
met with this proposal.
Recommendation:
Approve 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.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Lot Survey
3. Area Contour Map
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V'DEVCASES\567-99\VISTA.RPT
_ City of Mounds View,MN
Development Application Page 2
Present Use of Property
❑ Undeveloped/Vacant _ Single Family Dwelling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment
❑ Other(explain)
Property Classification 0 Abstract ❑ Torrens
Description of Proposal (T, $ci t t-D RE-S t bE+JTt+A h uS E- "' L+ L EV
BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
�1�Signature of Applicant - �`�•`w�? �-� , a
Name of Applicant(typed/printed) 7�+rvy PA LA i 19
Signature of Property Owner
Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) B U Ul.• `7 j o tti 6
Address of Owner 1 I M ft IES t1(z S .
/v) I J .J )N t.'s� N1 J 676-411 3
Phone Number of Owner t t 2- -7E 2 -2 S-eV 6 451 -L 33 --/
Z��
************************************************************************************************
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal 8-3 - 91
Date of Acceptance -3 g Assigned to:
dt
Planning Case No. (G(G C Cj, 60-day Limit 120-day limit
Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt#
Application: eti-a d 3 Le gO I d 9-5 /
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
Other:
Total:
1/98
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FO RMS\DEVAPP.FOR
. cr mi
1p I
23 0
4 4 43 42 0 41 o
o '^
4 •48 a,^ 47 o0 46 45 22
f�//f� M p
v/ Iq h )
Qo21j
•
I I
_J 1� i 253.2• - -- 25 :2 • 1
Li. �. fir.
Kwir_'•» .• • 4'7. 10 0 go 1 190
•
11 14 0 �1I
is %%0.1 V� •
I o 9pI 0 • kt,
•
O �� IN
OR
rive - Mg
V ; 19z. 1 :.� "�` a --
N o° 49 q e N r.>;i 1 Sb a 0a '•. fVI p¢•..•4AI,s o
�1 4900 v.,-:•ifiVolke4FILsi.
�� '' °° I 62 i o .rt.: .ti.•. E,4,+i+a i`w.s• -
. -t---
_ - ."� • •c; . •1,00.1000•••••
+++0110*•e+•♦'`
4134 7-.;;::::::::::::::',...if:f:....iig::::.iiiii:.:ini,...„„,„. „ 4...110•- ., .• •••.•
ai
0100
> - zoo f o .....;::::.:::..:•:: t• 886
51 0 0 65 '`: :fit° :;;1'``y:.t.,,om oto to 1.0♦•+•+0,00
:Y,•, ;.....,...,.....40::.....,x1 .0• 1050••+• •i•+•+
• ; ;_ ::y • <:' 1::_:•14.1 a •1•`►it
.�: r: �:�:��:f• 0100.x,•1♦•1♦00151,,c'�y0+
y.; si
i
t ♦ r
;: X01 •1515►►°•1�.i 3
•
;,+10.0+•010••5
_ 53 :: (-- 884: .::.. •:••.;:::::::::•.........:::;::::::........,.40104_,,,u„...„,
A� .. • .'
?:;• •1;: :. :• M4 i I.'4... _..4.3.40,,,,♦ 1
. ^
•
:t� 1 83 \10410°0:loi 040. i
- 5 5 = :'0 is 1:.•h•;:. , �� •10.0•♦0♦�+5.0�•
..: .�;.. 1 1'11 ���1�710V�1�`~.-a5t1 '!
29_ p <• I ZI.L4 1 4 L
5 6 = PP' ::; 'fl:; ,{: : 'i r < . E
SAN. SEWER W _ ' '•�'•.-' v.*:......:.fi•:r::!:.•1:'• - - - - - - r Z 8 z I 4in0 r
• ? L PToo 1 3.13 1 I P- O 1
57 - > :1Y.' '•`,,. 1 •' SPRIN6':IEW LA
View 2. a . t -
me : :L .b. (s0, 100 ICO a.+ta
I i _ J
I
I
i
r
Q :iQ o° ID,
O I
4:11
(i'� s .,;4• : $::7: '.77 :.. 78 79 80J _81 ,i Z
W I'• w ' H
: H 1_1:19....
O.
0 6 • w
irx+ 'i
r I O a' ►t �!??p ,
0
I
I;
:t
0
o I O
I •l 0
/52.09 1 !46 !.4 xzs -4-5..06.1� ��;�:�:+1'�' ..... =•rq�0�?:� :ifla: loo loo 1
.d. H 'T- - COUNTY ROAD Z270
•
RESOLUTION NO. 5365
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION REAPPROVING THE WETLAND BUFFER PERMIT
FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 6991 PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE AS
REQUESTED BY VISTA CONSTRUCTION;
PLANNING CASE NO. 510-97
WHEREAS, Vista Construction has requested approval of a wetland buffer permit to
construct an 1,800 square-foot home at 6991 Pleasant View Drive, property zoned R-1, Single-
Family Residential, legally described as follows:
Subject to Sanitary Sewer Easement,
Lot 70,Knollwood Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, 6991 Pleasant View Drive meets the dimensional requirements of a buildable
lot as set forth in Section 1104.06 of the Mounds View Zoning Code; and,
WHEREAS, parts of 6991 Pleasant View Drive are covered by wetland within the
subwatershed designated as SC-4 in the City's Local Water Management Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the minimum recommended building elevation within this sub-watershed is
878.9 and the proposed minimum building level is 888.6; and,
WHEREAS, the City reviews all development that occurs within wetlands and their
buffers because of the important role that wetlands play in maintaining the ecosystem and the area
hydrology, in that they are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of
the land, animals and people within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the proposal and finds it
consistent with the standards in the City's Wetland Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 1010.08,
Subdivision 4.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
approves the wetland buffer permit requested by Vista Construction, contingent upon the
following:
1. Construction erosion control measures in the form of a silt fence shall be installed
along the east perimeter boundary of the grading area to limit soil loss.
Adopted this 13th day of September, 1999.
Item No. /D 17
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September 13, 1999
Type of Business: Council Business
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 5354, a resolution denying a wetland
alteration permit requested by Oakwood Land Development to
construct two single family homes on Lots 17 and 18, Block 1,
Edgewood Square.
Date of Report: September 9, 1999
Background:
At the last regular meeting of the City Council on August 23, 1999, a public hearing was held
regarding Oakwood Land Development's request to have the City vacate part of a drainage
easement over two lot vacant lots on Pinewood Circle. These lots are covered n their entirety by
a drainage and utility easement which was dedicated to the City with the original platting of
Edgewood Square. The Council denied the request to vacate the drainage and utility easement
citing the present and future public benefit of flood control, buffer to the wetland and stormwater
drainage served by these two lots.
Discussion:
While the request to vacate the drainage and utility easement made the request for a wetland
buffer permit a moot point, no formal action was taken on the request. The attached resolution
makes clear that the requested alteration permit has also been denied.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 5354, a resolution denying a request for a wetland alteration permit on Lots
17 and 18, Block 1, Edgewood Square.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\56 5-99\COUNCIL.RPT
RESOLUTION NO.5354
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR
LOTS 17 AND 18,EDGEWOOD SQUARE,REQUESTED BY
OAKWOOD LAND DEVELOPMENT;
PLANNING CASE NO. 565-99
WHEREAS, Oakwood Land Development has requested approval of a wetland alteration
permit to construct two single-family homes on properties zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, legally
described as follows:
Lots 17 and 18,Block 1,Edgewood Square,Ramsey County,Minnesota
WHEREAS, parts of Lots 17 and 18 lay within the wetland designated as GF-4 in the City's
Local Water Management Plan; and,
WHEREAS,The City reviews all development that occurs within wetlands and their buffers
because of the important role that wetlands play in maintaining the ecosystem and the area hydrology,
in that they are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals
and people within the City; and,
WHEREAS, Lots 17 and 18 are completely contained within a drainage and utility easement as
dedicated to the City in perpetuity as part of the Edgewood Square plat filed with Ramsey County on
June 17, 1983; and,
WHEREAS, on August 23, 1999,the Mounds View City Council denied a request to vacate
part of said drainage an utility easement based upon the findings that the lots served a significant public
purpose for drainage, buffering and flood control; and,
WHEREAS, without City approval of the requested easement vacation, private construction
activity may not occur on the subject lots.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the requested wetland alteration permit is hereby
denied as no private alterations or construction activities are allowed to be performed within a publicly
dedicated drainage and utility easement.
Adopted this 13th day of September, 1999.
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 10 I
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September 13, 1999
Type of Business: Council Business
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 631, an Ordinance
Rezoning Property Located at 2670 County Road I from B-2,
Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential.
Date of Report: September 8, 1999
Background:
This ordinance, which authorizes the rezoning of 2670 County Road I from limited business
commercial to high density residential, was introduced and first read on August 23, 1999. The
rezoning has been requested by MSP Real Estate, who holds a contingent purchase agreement on
the property and intends to construct a 48 room assisted living senior residential facility on the
site.
Discussion:
After multiple meetings, the Planning Commission recommended that the Council adopt this
ordinance as well as approve a conditional use permit for the applicant to operate its proposed
assisted living facility. At its meeting on August 23, 1999, the Council introduced this rezoning
ordinance and directed staff to bring forward a resolution approving the conditional use permit.
There is a clause within this ordinance which states that the Council may act to reinstate the
original commercial zoning in the event the proposed project does not--for whatever reason--
come to fruition.
Recommendation:
Hold the second reading to adopt Ordinance 631, an ordinance rezoning property located at
2670 County Road I from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density
Residential.
\JMA
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\559-99\ORD631.2ND
ORDINANCE NO. 631
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF 2670 COUNTY ROAD I
FROM B-2,LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL, TO R-4, HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL AND AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP;
PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Recitals
Section 1.01: MSP Real Estate has applied for a rezoning of the property located at
2670 County Road I, currently zoned B-2, to be rezoned as R-4, High Density Residential, said
property legally described as follows:
Tract "A", Registered Land Survey 414
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
Section 1.02: The use proposed by MSP Real Estate is an assisted living senior residential
facility; and,
Section 1.03: The Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Site Plan
e. Staff Report
f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99
g. Letter from M&E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99
h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
I. Planning Commission Resolution 584-99
Section 1.04: The Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval
from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No.
584-99; and,
Section 1.05: The Mounds View City Council does hereby find that this proposal meets
the general requirements and standards for Rezonings as follows:
Ownership: The application for approval of this rezoning has been filed by MSP Real
Estate, who holds a purchase agreement for the property, and has been executed by the
owner of the property, M&E Realty Company.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency: The comprehensive plan designation for this property
is Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. The proposal is consistent with this designation.
Geographic Area Involved: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of
Mounds View Drive and County Road I. Nearby uses include a SuperAmerica and the
Silver View Plaza to the west, a high density residential development and Silver View
Park to the south, and a Burger King, Bicycle shop and a senior high rise to the north.
Impact to Adjoining Properties: It is believed that the impact of this proposed
development would be minimal. The use would act as a transition between the present
commercial and residential uses.
SECTION 2: The Mounds View City Council hereby amends Appendix A of the Mounds
View Municipal Code entitled"Specific Rezonings" and amends the Official Zoning Map for the
City of Mounds View to change the zoning designation on the property described above from B-2
to R-4.
SECTION 3. The Mounds View City Council does hereby stipulate that in the event the
development being proposed by MSP Real Estate does not come to fruition within one year of
this ordinance's adoption (or sooner, upon written notification of the applicant), the Council may
act to reinstate the property's original B-2 zoning classification.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication.
First Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 23rd day of August, 1999.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of September,
1999.
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DE VCASES\559-99\MSP631.ORD
c1
Resolution No. 1/4i-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
County of Ramsey
State of Minnesota •
A resolution certifying the 2000 proposed operating budget
and property tax levy, and setting the date for a public hearing
on said budget and levy pursuant to State Statutes.
WHEREAS, State Statutes require taxing jurisdictions to adopt a proposed levy on or before
September 15th for the subsequent year;
WHEREAS, said Statutes also require taxing jurisdictions to select a date for a public hearing and
continuation hearing, if necessary, on its budget and proposed property tax levy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Mounds View,
Minnesota:
1) Pursuant to State Statutes, the following proposed 2000 Budgets are hereby adopted:
General Fund $3,758,257
Fire Bonds 73,755
2) Pursuant to State Statutes, the following proposed 2000 property tax levy (net levy after
deducting homestead and agricultural credit aid) is hereby adopted:
General Fund $1,695,897
Fire Bonds 73,755
Total $1,769,652
3) A public hearing on the Proposed 2000 Budget and property tax levy will be held at 6:00
p.m. on December 6, 1999 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 2401 Highway 10,
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112. Should it be necessary to continue the meeting at a later
date, such continuation meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. on December 13, 1999 in said
Council Chambers.
• Adopted this 13th day of September, 1999.
Mayor
Clerk-Administrator
SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CITIES
Allowable Publication Dates and Public Hearing Dates in Regard
to Proposed Property Taxes for Payable 2000
IF INITIAL NOTICE OF CONTINUATION ADOPTION
HEARING PUBLIC HEARING HEARING HEARING
IN 1999 MAY BE PUBLISHED CAN BE HELD IF NEEDED CAN BE HELD*
ON OR BUT NOT ON OR BUT NOT ON OR BUT NOT
IS ON: AFTER LATER THAN: AFTER: LATER THAN: AFTER: LATER THAN:
NOV. 29 NOV. 18 NOV. 24 DEC.06 DEC. 17 NOV.30 DEC.28
0,1.1- 4.1(0,w4 NOV. 30 I S O iE 421 NOV. 19 NOV. 26 DEC.07 DEC. 18 DEC.01 DEC.28
440.41 DEC. 01 104.1",o TO:*tNOV. 22 NOV. 29 DEC.08 DEC. 18 DEC.02 DEC.28
DEC. 03 NOV. 24 DEC. 01 DEC. 10 DEC. 18 DEC.04 DEC.28
DEC. 04 NOV. 26 DEC. 02 DEC. 10 DEC. 18 DEC.06 DEC.28
DEC. 06 NOV. 26 DEC. 02 DEC. 13 DEC. 18 DEC.07 DEC.28
DEC. 07 NOV. 29 DEC. 03 DEC. 14 DEC. 18 DEC.08 DEC.28
DEC. 08 NOV. 30 DEC. 06 DEC. 15 DEC. 18 DEC.09 DEC.28
DEC. 09 DEC. 01 DEC. 07 DEC. 16 DEC. 18 DEC. 10 DEC.28
DEC 10 DEC. 02 DEC. 08 DEC. 17 DEC. 18 DEC. 11 DEC.28
DEC. 11 DEC. 03 DEC. 09 DEC. 17 DEC. 18 DEC. 13 DEC.28
DEC. 13 DEC. 03 DEC. 09 DISALLOWED DEC. 14 DEC.28
N ok—A,UcwaiDEC. 14 k4...uy C Pr DEC. 06 DEC. 10 DISALLOWED DEC. 15 DEC.28
DEC. 15 DEC. 07 DEC. 13 DISALLOWED DEC. 16 DEC.28
DEC. 16 DEC. 08 DEC. 14 DISALLOWED DEC. 17 DEC.28
DEC. 17 DEC. 09 DEC. 15 DISALLOWED DEC. 18 DEC.28
DEC. 18 DEC. 10 DEC. 16 DISALLOWED DEC.20 DEC.28
* The"on or after"dates shown for your adoption hearing assume that no continuation hearing is held. If a
continuation hearing is held,the levy adoption hearing could be held immediately following the
continuation hearing or on a subsequent date.
NOTES: (1)School district initial or continuation hearings on proposed property taxes for taxes payable in 2000 cannot be
held on:(a)December 5, 12,or 19,since these are Sundays;(b)December 2 or 20 since these
are the dates set aside for county initial hearings and continuation hearings,respectively;and(c)(for school
districts located wholly or partly within the seven county metropolitan area)December 1 or 8 since these are the
dates set aside for the metropolitan special taxing district initial and continuation hearings,respectively.
(2) City initial hearings on proposed property taxes for taxes payable in 2000 cannot be held on:"(a)December 5,
12,or 19, since these are Sundays;(b)December 2 or 20 since these dates are set aside for county initial
hearings and continuation hearings,respectively;and(c)(for cities located wholly or partly within the seven
county metropolitan area)December 1 or 8 since these are the dates set aside for the metropolitan special taxing
district initial and continuation hearings,respectively. City continuation hearings may be scheduled for a date
that conflicts with the continuation hearing of another taxing authority(county,school district, metropolitan
special taxing district) if the city deems it necessary.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator
From: Bruce A. Kessel, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Resolution for increase in tax rate for the year 2000
Date of Report: September 7, 1999
During the 1999 Legislative session, a new law was passed which requires that cities hold a
public hearing(defined as action at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting; no notice is
required to be published) and adopt a resolution authorizing an increase in the tax rate if they will
have a tax rate increase. The resolution must be passed and filed with the County Auditor no later
than October 20th
.
For purposes of this calculation, the State has specified a formula to be used to calculate whether
there will be a tax rate increase. Due to the structure of the formula, a city can certify a 0%
change in its certified levy when compared to the prior year and still have a"tax rate increase"if
the city receives more state aid than they did in the previous year.
While tax capacity values have not been finalized, preliminary data indicates that our tax
capacity increased in excess of 5%. Our preliminary proposed property tax levy increased less
than 1%. However,the formula indicates that we will have an increase in our tax rate. As such,
we are required to pass a resolution authorizing such an increase.
Resolution No. •,6" 8
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
County of Ramsey
State of Minnesota
A resolution authorizing a property tax rate increase for the year 2000 pursuant to State
Statutes.
WHEREAS, State Statutes require taxing jurisdictions to pass a resolution prior to October 20th if
they wish to have a tax rate increase as defined by the Statute over the previous year's tax rate;
WHEREAS, the preliminary budget provides for an increase in the tax levy of less than 1% and
an increase in excess of 5% in the City's tax capacity;
WHEREAS, said Statutes formula for calculating an increase in the City's year 2000 property tax
rate indicated that there will be an increase; and
WHEREAS, the City considered this increase at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting which
meets the requirement of a public hearing as defined in said statute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Mounds View,
Minnesota that said City does hereby authorize that the property tax rate for the year 2000 be
greater than that for the year 1999.
Adopted this 13th day of September, 1999.
Mayor
Clerk-Administrator
09/04/99 11:21 FAX 651 266 2022 RMSY CNTY RECORDS FJ002/006
TNT 09/03/1999
Ramsey County
Department of Property Records &Revenue
Tax Rate Calculation for Truth in Taxation
Taxes Payable in 2000
City of MOUNDS VIEW
Tax Capacity Values _ Payable 2000 Payable 1999 Inc/(Dec.)
Real Estate Property 7,291,741 6,771,048 520,693
Personal Property _ 158,560 162,341 (3,781)
Total Tax Capacity j 7,450,301 6,933,389 , 516,912
Less: Tax Increment Tax Capacity 1,692,327 1,502,950 189,377
Less: Fiscal Disparity Contribution 924,405 842,062 82,343
Value for Local Rate 4,833,569 4,588,377 245,192
Add: Final Fiscal Disparity Distribution 1,934,381 1,783,754 150,627
Value after Fiscal Disparity Sharing 6,767,950 6,372,131 395,819
Market Values '
Total Market Value 453,378,950 422,341,350 j 31,037,600
Total Referendum Market Value 453,202,950 _ 422,182,950 31,020,000
Initial Fiscal Disparity Distribution 1,991,272 2,038,576 (47,304)
I Distribution Dollars 534,756 _ 528,154 6,602
To Calculate Local Value -Tax Base:
Certified Levy Local Tax
Levy Amount Amount Distribution Local Levy Local Capacity Rate
Before HACA HACA (A) - (B) = (C) Dollars (C) - (D) = (E) Tax Capacity (E)/ (F) = (G)
(A) (B) (C)_ (D) _ (E) (F) (G)
389,139 534,756 4,833,569
09/04/99 11:23 FAX 651 266 2022 RMSY CNTY RECORDS II006/006
TNT 09/04/1999
County Auditor's Determination of a Levy Certification Tax Rate
Ramsey County
Department of Property Records & Revenue
Taxes Payable in 2000
City of MOUNDS VIEW
Levy Certification Tax Rate
1 Add: Payable 1999 Certified Net Tax Capacity Levy $ 1,760,362
2 Add: Payable 1999 Certified Referendum Market Value Levy $ 0
3 Equals: Payable 1999 Total Certified Levy $ 1,760,362
4 Less: Payable 1999 Certified Levy for General Obligation Bonds $ 80,151
5 Equals: Payable 1999 Total Certified Non-Debt Levy $ 1,680,211
6 Less: Payable 2000 Fiscal Disparities Distribution Dollars 534,756
7 Less: Payable 2000 HACA Net Tax Capacity Adjustment $ 0
8 Less: Payable 2000 HACA Fiscal Disparity Adjustment $ 26,408
L9_ Equals: Net Levy - $ 1,119,047
10 Payable 2000 Taxable Net Tax Capacity ,$ 4;833,569
11 Levy Certification Tax Rate _ 23.15%
Payable 2000 Non-Debt Levy Determination _ -
Total Certified Levy
1 Add: Payable 2000 Total Certified Levy (Net of HACA) * 1,-7(
2 Less: Payable 2000 Certified Levy for General Obligation Bonds -
3 Equals: Payable 2000 Total Certified Non-Debt Levy = (, 9 ?
4 Less: Payable 2000 Fiscal Disparities Distribution Dollars - 534,756
5 Equals: Payable 2000 Adjusted Certified Non-Debt Levy = ...ZItkl; /cH -
6 Net Levy from Levy Certification $ 1,119,047
7 I Required Reduction (if Line 5 is greater than Line 6) .. $ ya d g
8 I If Line 5 is greater than Line 6,Author must pass a resolution for the increase.
10 L.
ORDINANCE NO. 641
City of Mounds View
County of Ramsey
State of Minnesota
An ordinance implementing a franchise fee on electric and natural gas
utility companies for the operation of the utility within the City of Mounds View
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: PURPOSE
Subdivision 1.
The Mounds View City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to
impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric
services within the City of Mounds View.
Subdivision 2.
Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 517 and Ordinance No. 518, which are the Franchise
Agreements ("Franchise Agreements")between the City of Mounds View(the City) and
Northern States Power Company(the Company), and Ordinance No. 625 which is a
Franchise Agreement between the City and Reliant Energy Minnegasco (Minnegasco), a
franchise fee of not more than four(4)percent of the utility company's gross operating
revenues may be imposed by the City at any time during the year term of associated
Franchise. The franchise fee is paid as full compensation for the rights to transmit and
furnish electric energy for light, heat, power and import, transport, sell and distribute natural
gas for heating, illuminating and other purposes as outlined in Section 2 of Ordinance Nos.
517, 518, and 625.
Subdivision 3.
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 622 effective January 16, 1999 and Ordinance No. 634 effective
August 1, 1999, the City imposed a franchise fee under the electric and natural gas Franchise
Agreements in the amount of two and one-half(2.5)percent of the Company's and
Minnegasco's gross revenues, as defined in Section 4.2 of the Franchise Agreements, subject
to a sunset on December 31, 1999.
SECTION II. STATEMENT
Subdivision 1.
A franchise fee is hereby imposed in the amount of two and one-half(2.5)percent of gross
revenues which franchise fee was being collected under Ordinance No. 622 and 634, and
said franchise fee shall continue to be collected hereunder as though the sunset provision in
Ordinance No. 622 and 634 were suspended until the effective date of collection of the
franchise fee being imposed by Subdivision 2 below.
Subdivision 2.
A franchise fee is hereby imposed on the Company and Minnegasco, under their electric and
natural gas Franchise Agreements in the amount of two and one-half(2.5)percent of the
associated utility company's gross revenues, as defined in Section 4.2 of the Franchise
Agreements, commencing with their January, 2000,billing month. On said commencement
date, collection of the franchise fee being collected under Subdivision 1 terminates.
Ordinance 641
Page 2
SECTION III. PAYMENT
Said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 4
of the Franchise Agreements.
SECTION IV. SURCHARGE
The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission requires each said utility
company to add to its effective rates for the utility services on which the public utility gross
earnings fee is imposed, a surcharge to reimburse such utility company for the cost of the fee.
SECTION V. PROOF OF COMPANY GROSS REVENUES
Each said utility company shall make each payment when due and shall quarterly furnish a
complete and correct statement of gross revenues for said quarter. Such utility company shall
permit the City and its designated representative free access to the company's records for the
purpose of verifying such statements.
SECTION VI. ENFORCEMENT
Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in
accordance with Section 2.5 of the Franchise Agreements.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE OF FRANCHISE FEE
Notwithstanding the effective date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions
in Section 4 of the present Electric Energy Franchise Agreement and Gas Energy Franchise
Agreement, Ordinance Nos. 517, 518, and 625,respectively, the effective date of the fee being
collected under Subdivision 1 of Section II of this ordinance is the later of ten(10) days after its
publication and after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance
upon the Company and Minnegasco by certified mail. The requirements of Section 4.1 of
Ordinance Nos. 517, 518, and 625 shall control franchise fee collections between the City and
the Company, and Minnegasco in all other respects.
SECTION VIII. SUNSET CLAUSE
This ordinance shall automatically sunset on December 31, 2001.
Ordinance Introduction: September 13, 1999 Approved as to form:
Ordinance Adoption: October 11, 1999
Date of Publication: October 20, 1999
Effective Date: January 1, 2000 City Attorney
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk-Administrator
Item No. /D N
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: September 13, 1999
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 5345, a resolution approving a
conditional use permit request for an assisted living senior
residential facility at 2670 County Road I.
Date of Report: September 9, 1999
Background:
At the last regular meeting of the City Council, the public hearing and first reading of Ordinance
631 was held. This ordinance, upon adoption and publication in the newspaper, will rezone the
property located at 2670 County Road Ito allow for an assisted living senior residential facility to
be constructed on the site. At that same meeting, after the public hearing, the Council directed
staff to draft a resolution to approve the use itself, as it requires a Conditional Use Permit.
Attached to this report is Resolution 5345, a Resolution approving such use as requested by the
applicant, MSP Real Estate.
Discussion:
The proposed use addresses a specialized and unique niche in the elderly and infirm care industry,
the likes of which are not evident in this immediate area. The conditions of the use, according to
Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2, are as follows:
a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this District and are
screened in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title.
b. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section
1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-29-96)
c, Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be
fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title.
d. The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to
accommodate traffic which will be generated.
e. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance
City of Mounds View Staff Report
September 9, 1999
Page 2
with the Mounds View Sign Code
f All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and all required
operating permits are secured.
g. One off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title is
provided.
h. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and
satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96)
The applicant has been apprised of these conditions and together with staff; have determined that
all of the above conditions can and will be satisfied. The last condition, Item"h", pertains to the
adverse effects associated with or resulting from this use, which the Planning Commission and
Council are to consider in their decision. Staff and the Planning Commission, which discussed
and reviewed the merits of this proposal over the course of four meetings, feel that the impacts of
this proposed use are minimal, at least in comparison to the impacts of a potential commercial use
that could be developed. The use would generally be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the
property is adjacent yet behind commercial uses, separated from the park and the residential area
by Mounds View Drive. It does not seem probable that this project would depreciate the area in
any way as it would seem to be a good fit for the area, acting as a buffer between the commercial
corridor and the residential neighborhood. As stated above, the apparent need for such a use
exists and as such would not adversely affect other similar uses as there are none.
Ordinance 639, which is scheduled for its second reading and adoption at this same meeting, adds
to the above list an item"i," requiring that the number of parking spaces provided be equivalent to
one space per every three beds or fraction thereof plus one space per every employee on the shift
having the most personnel present. While this ordinance will not go into affect until thirty days
after its publication in the newspaper, the conditional use process gives the City the opportunity
to add appropriate conditions such as the revised parking requirement.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 5345, a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for an assisted living
senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I, as requested by MSP Real Estate.
'fC9
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\MSP-CUP.CC2
RESOLUTION NO. 5345
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
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.
WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for an
assisted living senior residential facility at 2670 County Road I; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-2, Limited Business Commercial and is
legally described as follows:
Tract 'A", Registered Land Survey 414
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Location Map
d. Site Plan
e. Staff Report
f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo, dated 8/3/99
g. Letter from M & E Realty, Property Owner, dated 5/24/99
h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
I. Planning Commission Resolution 584-99
Resolution No. 5345
September 13, 1999
Page 2
WHEREAS, such a facility is a permitted conditional use within the R-4, High Density
residential zoning district; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council adopted Ordinance 631 on September 13,
1999, an ordinance which rezoned the subject property from B-2, Limited Business Commercial,
to R-4, High Density Residential; and,
WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council has considered the specific criteria for assisted
living facilities as they appear in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2 and find that they are met; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has considered the following provisions from
Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use:
(1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The geographical area involved.
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
(5) The demonstrated need for such use.
and makes the following findings concerning same:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use PUD, which would be consistent
with the proposed R-4 zoning of this site. Such a facility would help meet the housing needs
of a particular segment of the community. The property is located between commercial sites
to the north and a high density residential development and park to the south. The proposed
use would act as a buffer between the existing land uses. The proposed style and architectural
design of the proposed facility would blend into and add character to this area.
WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council makes the following findings that the general
criteria for CUP approval in Subdivision 1125.01 (2) have been met:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public
facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
It is not expected that this use will have any impact on parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be
no deterrence to development of vacant land.
This development, while not abutting any residential property, would be sufficiently
compatible with the existing land uses and would not cause any foreseeable depreciation in
neighboring property values.
Resolution No. 5345
September 13, 1999
Page 3
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent
residential properties.
The architectural renderings presented to the Planning Commission and public show a well
designed and aesthetically pleasing building.
(4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and
to the existing land use.
The demand for assisted living facilities such as the one proposed is growing to
accommodate an aging population.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district
in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The use would be consistent with the R-4 zoning district, which allows for assisted living
facilities with a conditional use permit.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development, which indicates an anticipation for a variety of uses. An assisted living
facility would be consistent with this designation and would also address a goal to offer a
wide range of housing alternatives to a variety of population segments.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
It is not expected that this use would create or generate substantial levels of traffic. As such,
it would not be expected that this use would cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
All of the infrastructure serving this site are installed and provided--no additional
infrastructure will be needed to accommodate this use.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit for an assisted living senior residential facility at 2670
County Road I as requested by MSP Real Estate, with the following stipulations:
1. The applicant shall record the conditional use permit with Ramsey County within 60
days of City Council approval and provide proof of such recordation to the City or
this permit shall become null and void.
Resolution No. 5345
September 13, 1999
Page 4
2. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a development review for this
use, submitting the appropriate fee and submittal materials to the Director of
Community Development.
3. The use shall be allowed to display facility identification signage as reviewed by
the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council within the
development review process, in an amount not to exceed 32 square feet, not
including any incidental or directional signage as allowed by Code.
4. All State laws and statutes governing such uses shall be strictly adhered to and all
required permits for operation shall be obtained and maintained.
5. The facility shall be secured at all times to protect the health and safety of the
facility residents.
6. The use will be subject to parking requirements equivalent to one stall per every
three beds or fractions thereof and one stall per every employee on that shift having
the most personnel present.
Adopted this 13th day of September, 1999.
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEV CASES\559-99\5345CC.RES
10
RESOLUTION NO. 5 3'7 a
Authorizing interfund advance from Special Projects Fund to Golf Course.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
County of Ramsey
State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the City issued bonds in 1994 to construct a golf course and driving range which have
several covenants including requiring the City to maintain bond reserves of approximately $309,000.
WHEREAS, the City constructed a golf course and later pursued legal action to correct construction
deficiencies; and
WHEREAS,the City settled its lawsuit out of court at an amount less than the cost to pay the associated
legal fees and correct the construction deficiencies; and
WHEREAS, the golf course has had interfund borrowings in the past but presently does not have
adequate cash to meet its bond covenants.
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that City
authorizes up to an additional$200,000 of interfund loans to be available to the golf course as is needed
to meet existing bond covenants.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the actual amount to be made available on an annual basis shall
not exceed the amount required to be able to maintain the City's required bond reserves.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the source of the interfund loan shall be the Special Projects Fund
and that interest shall be calculated based upon simple interest of.5%.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the golf course shall repay such amounts plus accrued interest, the
earlier of: 1)when such funds are no longer needed to meet the required bond covenants;or 2)within two
years after all the bonds have been repaid(year 2016).
Said resolution was declared to have been duly passed and adopted this 13th day of September 1999.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
City Administrator