Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packets - 1999/11/15
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY,NOVEMBER 15, 1999 AMENDED 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council October 25, 1999 Minutes 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Acknowledgement of Presentation of Mounds View Plaque of Dedicated Service,Kitty Hickok. 6. REPORTS A. Administrator and Attorney Report on November 11, 1999 Charter Commission Meeting. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m. Monday,November 22, 1999 to consider a new Tobacco license for Tobacco Empire at 2563 %2 Highway 10. C. Approve Resolution No. 5383, a Resolution Creating Streets Fund and Dedication of Portion of Franchise Fee Revenue to Fund. D. Consideration of Resolution No. 5384, a Resolution Rejecting Sign Bids and Authorizing Rebid. E. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Roseville for Temporary Utilization of Management Information Systems Personnel. F. Consideration of Resolution No. 5389,A Resolution Approving Premise Permits for the Lion's Club to Permit Charitable Gambling at the Mermaid and Robert's Off Highway 10 in the City of Mounds View. 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 A. Council Review of Letter to Governor Ventura re: Reliever Airports Policies B. Resolution Approving Fee Increases for 2000. C:\JOANB\AGENDAS\CC\11/15/99.CC Page Two City Council Agenda November 15, 1999 C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 636, an Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 906, Section 906.01, Relating to the Water Test Requirements for Households with Well Water. 1. Second reading and Adoption of Ordinance. 2. Vote: Quick, Stigney, Thomason,Marty, Coughlin D. Consideration of Resolution 5385, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for a Two-story, 46-Room Senior Assisted Living Facility at 1670 County Road I. E. Consideration of Resolution 5386, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit for Spencer Mistelsek, 2442 Laport Drive. F. Approval of Amendment to City Attorney Retainer and Non-Retainer Agreement. G. Review Y2000 Budget. H. Resolution Appointing City Voting Delegate and Alternate for Congress of Cities Policy Adoption Voting at NCC Conference. I. Airport Commission Appointment. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, December 6, 1999--6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday,November 22, 1999-- 7:00 P.M. Next Public Hearing: Monday,November 22, 1999—6:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT C:\JOANB\AGENDAS\CC\10-25-99.CC November 10, 1999 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Re: November 15, 1999 City Council Meeting We have a few business type items to take care of, but likely the item the Council may want to spend the most time on is the budget discussion for next year. Here's what we have for Monday: 5. A. Recognition of Kitty Hickok for her Twelve Years of Service: Kitty will have left City employment by meeting time, but it would seem appropriate to ask the Council to note her years of service to the City and to wish her well in her new position. 6. A. Administrator and Attorney Report on Charter Commission Meeting of November 11, 1999: Bob Long and I attended the November 11 Charter Commission on behalf of the City Council to review with them the issues the Council has addressed for the Charter. Bob and I can address this more fully on Monday, but generally the Commission appeared to be in consensus that three issues are minor with some clarifications. The term limit issue was felt to be proper but some feeling that a notation that the provision may be in conflict with the state constitution may be appropriate. The group also felt it attempted to respond to the Council's concerns, but did need more time to fully understand the issues. Some discussion took place interpreting my letter of August 12. The Commission and Council have several avenues for legally making changes to the Charter. My letter however was written more as a "friendly" meaning I conveyed the issues for their evaluation, but did not address particular redress provisions. I suggested the reply of October 14 did not impart to the Council the concerns with time nor the depth of discussion the Commission was involved with, and interpretation of that response may have contributed to the concerns expressed at the last two Council meetings. The Commission will continue to address the issues the Council passed to them. They meet next in January where it appears the Chair will draft a position letter after their discussion, and bring it back to the Commission at their February meeting for agreement before sending back to the City Council. 7. C. Resolution 5383, Creating Streets Funds and Dedicating Portion of Franchise Fee: The Council reviewed this drafted resolution at the work session. As noted at that meeting, this resolution creates the repository for street improvements funds and dedicates the increase in the franchise fee to the fund. The resolution does not complete the City's policies development for determining which projects get done and how, nor does it presume full long term funding obligations. That will continue to need to be made by each Council annually. 7. D. Resolution 5384, Rejecting Sign Bids and Authorizing Rebidding: Mike's memo explains this in greater detail. Some disagreement over interpretation of the specifications by one bidder leads staff to recommend rebidding. While I do not see any fault of the City in preparing the specifications, since only two bidders bid, the problems associated with just selecting one may be greater than simply rebidding. 10. A. Council Review of Letter to Governor Ventura re: Reliever Airports Policies: John Choi has drafted the enclosed letter on behalf of the City and our fellow communities working on reliever airport issues. Bob Long can review the letter with the Council for its endorsement. No formal action is needed here,just consensus of the Council to have the Mayor sign and send. A motion to that effect would solidify the Council's position on the statements made in the letter. 10. B. Resolution Approving Fee Increases for 2000: This matter was also reviewed at the work session regarding building permit and related community development fees. Rick's memo will cover this item. 10. C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 636 re: Water Testing of Household Wells: Community Development staff will cover the details of this ordinance. Following up on the discussion the Council had at the work session, with no public hearing requirement for ordinance adoptions, the Council is reminded that it can choose to set a public hearing on an ordinance adoption if it so chooses. If the Council chooses to, action on adopting this ordinance should be put off until the hearing date. 10. D. Resolution 53xx Approving a Development Review for the MSP Development: Rick's memo will cover this item. 10. E. Resolution 5386 for Wetland Buffer Permit at 2442 Laport Drive: Council will recall this property to be the development on Laport in the "little woods" area. Jim Ericson's report should detail the specifics. 10. F. Approval of Amendment to City Attorney Retainer Agreement and New Non- Retainer Provisions: Bob Long has put together a couple of letters dated October 14 to lay out the arrangement with the City for legal services. As discussed with the Council, the retainer agreement itself essentially stays the same. In order to more actively manage additional legal services, Bob Long and Scott Riggs worked up a "non-retainer" understanding with myself and staff members. All non-retainer work would be so declared as non-retainer work prior to initiating the work. Kennedy and Graven would e-mail notice of this along with clarification of the service to be provided and the estimated expense to the appropriate staff member. The staff member would then sign off electronically on their notice in order for work to commence. The e- mail transaction would then serve as the record for ordering the work. In reviewing this, I came to the further conclusion that while some legal work is of nominal cost, other work may take on more cost and implications. Since some staff members will work closely with the attorney, I felt it would be appropriate to grant authority to staff members for initiating the work commensurate with their level of authority within the organization. Enclosed Council will find a draft policy for later consideration as part of the Personnel Policies Manual. The implications of this policy are to extend that purchasing authority to non-legal items as well. Currently purchases do not go through such levels of uniform authority, and I think it would be beneficial if we started. The levels can be debated if they seem to open or restrictive. As for the legal services, a motion approving the working arrangement as presented would suffice. Changes or different terms can be reviewed during the meeting. 10. G. Resolution Appointing Voters for City at NLC Conference: With Lynne and myself going, this resolution will allow us to vote on the policy issues presented at the business meeting. 10. H. Review Year 2000 Budget: The Council should bring its budget books and determine what issues or specific line items it wishes to address. Bruce and I will attempt to respond to questions as they come. Council should recall that the next meeting will be the City hearing meeting on the budget. In other business, I met with Mike Berke and the town home association attorney with Scott Riggs regarding the storm drainage problem and agreement between the association and the City. We agreed to look at the agreement collectively and address the ideal arrangement between the association and the City. This would parallel an assessment of the infrastructure in their area and afterwards, we would meet again to review the situation for some working room. Likely we will put the status of these discussions on the December work session. A reminder that Tuesday evening will be the Council staff work session. Three Council members felt the meeting should not be televised, one did, and one had no opinion, so the meeting will not be televised. There will be a small packet for this meeting that should be ready on Friday. Also, Thursday is Veterans Day and the office is closed. Bob Long and I will attend the Charter Commission meeting that evening. Have a good weekend and see you Monday, and Tuesday. yA PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 25, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10,Mounds View, MN 55112 7:02 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Stigney, and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: Marty. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, October 26, 1999, City Council Agenda Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. Mayor Coughlin stated Assistant to the City Administrator Reed has requested the addition of Consent Agenda Item F, Granting Kennel License Renewal. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Accept the September 27, 1999, City Council Agenda as Presented, with the Addition of Consent Agenda Item F, Granting Kennel License Renewal. Ayes—4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, October 11, 1999, City Council Minutes Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 3, fourth paragraph, first sentence to indicate "as well as three of the Parks..." Mayor Coughlin requested Page 3, seventh paragraph, first sentence be corrected to indicate the name "Pastor Morris Vaagnes." Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 7, eighth paragraph, first sentence and all references following, to indicate the correct spelling of the name "Julie Olsen." Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 11, tenth paragraph, first sentence, and all references following, to indicate the correct spelling of the name "William Werner, Sr." Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mayor Coughlin requested Page 12, fourth paragraph, second sentence, the word "intra- structure," and all references following, be corrected to indicate the word "infrastructure." Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 15, first paragraph, first sentence, and all references following, to change the name "Carol Prime"to "Carol Frey." Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 17, fourth paragraph, first sentence, and all references following, to indicate the correct spelling of the name "Naja Werner." Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 18, twelfth paragraph, second sentence, to indicate the correct spelling of the word "debacles." Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 20, sixth paragraph, first sentence to indicate "...he lives on a private street, and will have to..." Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 29, first full paragraph, fourth sentence to indicate "was not a case of the Council failing to inform." Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 6, fourth paragraph to indicate "...Elegant Times Catering, Youth Chairs, for the amount of$11,042, and inquired..." Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 20, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence to indicate "...not only are they attempting to preserve..." Council Member Stigney requested the omission of the words "is money" from Page 20, fifth paragraph, fourth sentence, and to indicate "He pointed out the City is spending money..." Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 23, fourth paragraph, second sentence to indicate "...the opportunity to reconsider the issues." Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 29, sixth paragraph, fifth sentence to indicate "...no residents he has spoken to were aware of the proposed increase." MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Quick. To accept the October 11, 1999 City Council minutes as corrected. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Presentation of Resolution of Commendation to Retired Firefighter Dan Yackel. Mayor Coughlin stated firefighter Dan Yackel retired from the Fire Department on August 3, 1999. During his years of service, Captain Yackel has responded to more than 3,000 fire calls, and attended over 680 weekly drills. He has received Awards of Merit for responding to the most fire calls at Fire Station 1, in 1984, 1985 and 1986, and has also received the Distinguished Service Award for Station 1 in 1986. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 Mayor Coughlin presented Captain Yackel with a Resolution of Commendation, passed by Resolution No. 5371, a resolution extending appreciation for his many years of service to the City of Mounds View. Captain Yackel expressed his appreciation to his wife for her patience and support. 6. REPORTS Council Member Thomason reported that the Economic Development Commission meeting of the previous month had been cancelled, however, their next regular meeting would be held on Thursday. Council Member Stigney reported he attended the Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 1999, at which meeting the Development Review for MSP Real Estate assisted living facility was considered, and discussion took place regarding proposed Ordinance 642, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code relating to driveway widths and curb cuts. Council Member Stigney noted the Commission was provided an update of the billboard issue, which included the written opinion of the City Attorney, and there was discussion of previous Council actions and the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Stigney reported he attended the Charter Commission meeting on October 14, 1999, at which meeting there was approval of the response to the request of the Council to review changes to the Charter. He stated the Charter Commission formulated and drafted an official response to this request, and this matter was scheduled for consideration on the current Council agenda. Council Member Stigney stated, in light of the franchise fees imposed upon the residents at the previous Council meeting, he has submitted to the Charter Commission an amendment to Section 1006, Franchise Fees, of the City Charter, which indicates "Any fees to be imposed upon utility users must follow the notification and public hearing process specified in Section 1003 of this Charter. This includes any new change or continuation of existing Franchise Fees or other user fees." He explained that this amendment would force the Council to advertise for a public hearing in these situations. Mayor Coughlin reported he had testified at the Metropolitan Council public hearing regarding the airport noise footprint. He stated that the Focus News has printed portions of his testimony, which was in opposition to the lowering of standards of airport noise, and essentially allowing one half of the noise in that footprint as is present there. Mayor Coughlin reported he attended the first meeting of the Pinewood Elementary School Facilities Committee. He stated there was discussion of the ongoing needs of the facility and how to best allocate their portion of the newly passed bond referendum, as well as the expansion and improvement of the facilities, to better meet the needs of the students. Mayor Coughlin reported he had attended a luncheon sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, at which Mayor Norm Coleman was the featured speaker. He stated he enjoyed the opportunity to speak with Mayor Coleman, who was seated at the head table with him. He commented that Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mayor Coleman is a dynamic speaker, and a very passionate individual. He added this meeting was also recently reported in the Focus News. Mayor Coughlin reported he attended a meeting with Senator Novak the previous Friday. He stated there was further discussion of the City's position on the airport issue, and they had attempted to reach some agreement with the Metropolitan Council, either in conjunction with, or instead of the legislation presently planned for consideration at the upcoming Legislative Session. Mayor Coughlin reported he and a variety of staff attended an electronic filing demonstration presented by AMI that date. He stated this vendor provided an idea of potential upgrades in technology that would allow for easier access to files in the future, and for a good portion of the City's documentation and paperwork to be directly accessible to the residents on the Internet. Mayor Coughlin stated a packet of information on this subject was available in the Council office for review. City Administrator Whiting reported he attended Metropolitan Mayors Board Meeting the previous week, and was updated regarding the legislative issues that will be taking place in the Fall, in preparation for the Legislative Session. He stated he also attended the Metropolitan Airport Commission meeting in Fridley, at which there was further discussion regarding airport noise sound footprints. He noted a comment was made that State Representative Barbara Haake has been seen at virtually every legislative meeting being held, and she is hard at work. City Administrator Whiting reported the League of Minnesota Cities and the AMM have finalized their policy committees for legislative positions, and will hold their meetings for Council and staff to attend, to approve those policies for the upcoming Legislative Session. He advised that the AMM meeting is scheduled for the evening of November 17 and the League of Minnesota Cities meeting would be held all day on November 19. City Administrator Whiting stated the Year 2000 Budget information will be reported in the Mounds View Matters in the near future. He advised the annual informational meeting will be held on November 22, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, prior to the regular Council Meeting, and anyone interested in these issues is encouraged to attend. He added that interested parties may call or E-mail the City for further information. City Attorney Long had no report. Director of Public Works Ulrich reported the residents of Mounds View have received the first Consumer Confidence Report this week. He explained that this report is in regard to the Safe Water Act, and is provided annually, by mandate of the Federal Government. He indicated the report covers all tests performed on the water system within the previous year, and provides information regarding where the water is obtained, and how it is treated. He pointed out the various tests are performed not only by in-house staff, but also by the Minnesota Department of Health. Director of Public Works Ulrich commended Administrative Assistant Tracy Juell, and Water Operators, Bill Haney and Bill Hanson, the authors of the document, for their hard work. He stated the City has a very good document, and they will not attempt to go beyond this next year. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 He explained their goal was to create a document that was appealing to the eye, very readable by all ages of residents, and to provide information regarding the quality of the water within the City. He added that several videotapes of this subject matter would be available at the schools and library for further review. Director of Public Works Ulrich advised that staff and the Department of Health, after conducting several tests of the individual vessels at the water treatment facility and various sampling points, have determined that the arsenic level previously reported was traced to a spicket they obtained a sample from. He explained that the reclaim tank was cleaned, as it is on an annual basis, and after the spicket was replaced with a stainless steel fixture, the arsenic level was reduced to less than one part per billion, which is virtually non-detectable. He advised that even if the Federal Government was to lower the regulations on arsenic, which are currently at 50 parts per billion, the City will still be in compliance, as of their current testing. Council Member Stigney inquired if the water quality report was required to be mailed individually to all residents' homes, or if it could have been included or inserted into a newsletter. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the report could have been included in a newsletter, and various communities have chosen different methods by which to distribute this information. He pointed out, however, staff has spent a considerable amount of time and effort producing this document, and wanted to insure it was not simply missed in the newspaper. Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the cost of the mailing. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated he was uncertain. Mayor Coughlin stated he had received several comments and telephone calls from residents expressing that this report was very professionally done, and was appealing and eye-catching. He pointed out, especially in light of the arsenic incident reported in the Star Tribune, it was a good idea to distribute a separate document, which would draw attention to the fact that the City's water quality is great. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff has received some complaints and concerns regarding the newly painted stripes on Edgewood Drive, in terms of the double yellow line at the entrance to the City Hall parking lot. He explained there was some confusion in regard to making a left-hand turn into the parking lot, when travelling south off of Highway 10. He stated he has asked the Project Engineer if it would be possible to redesign the pattern to indicate a double left-hand turn, and utilize one lane for a left-hand turn to the east and west. He was informed, however, the striper is booked until the end of the year, and this would not be possible at this time. He inquired if the Council had heard any similar concerns. Mayor Coughlin noted an individual who had come to visit him at City Hall had encountered some confusion when attempting to enter the City Hall parking lot. Director of Public Works Ulrich advised, although a vehicle may not pass another vehicle on a double yellow line, it is permissible to cross the double yellow line for turning purposes. No further reports were considered. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Set Date for Informational Meeting on the Year 2000 Budget for Monday, November 22, 1999 at 6.00 p.m. C. Set Date for Council/Staff Quarterly Meeting for Thursday, November 4, 1999, at 5:00 p.m. D. Contractor Licenses for Approval. E. Consideration and First Reading of Ordinance No. 636 Amending Title 900, Municipal Water System, of the Mounds View Municipal Code by Amending Section 906.01, Subd. 2(B) Testing Required; Water Quality. F. Granting Kennel License Renewal. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, C, D, E, and F as presented. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he viewed the Work Session discussions regularly on television, to assist him in determining what issues to bring forward at the Council Meetings, however, the Work Session meeting that date had not been broadcast. He stated it was his understanding these meetings would be broadcast for the residents' information, and inquired why this Work Session was not made available. Mayor Coughlin stated it was the general consensus of the Council at two or three prior meetings, that these specific meetings would not be broadcast, due to the nature of the discussion, which was to be "off the top of their heads," and because of the Cable broadcasting schedule. He advised this would not be an ongoing occurrence, and none of the issues were to be hidden, however, a number of issues required consideration, and the Council desired to address these in somewhat of a brainstorming or envisioning process. He pointed out that the discussion had simply touched upon the "big picture"and budget considerations. Mr. Jahnke stated in light of the discussion regarding open communication, even if the discussion was only"off the top of their heads", it would be good to broadcast the meetings. He stated he hoped these meetings would be broadcast in the future, as he was of the understanding they would all be broadcast. Mr. Jahnke commented that many promises have been made which have not taken place. He stated the franchise fee was to be set aside for the road projects, and this was to be accomplished Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 by a resolution, following the franchise fee increase at the previous Council meeting. He stated he was unable to remain at the meeting for consideration of this resolution, and inquired if this had been done. Mayor Coughlin explained that the resolution, which passed on a 4-1 vote, was to designate all of the increase in the franchise fee, and possibly more, as indicated by Council Member Marty, to the roads. He pointed out that the increase of 1.5 percent is designated fully for this purpose, and this is indicated specifically in the resolution. Mr. Jahnke inquired if this amount was to be designated totally for future road repairs. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct, it is designated for infrastructure repair and reconstruction. City Administrator Whiting explained the resolution directed staff to draft language for the Council to consider in November, to formalize this at a level the Council is comfortable with, in terms of the ease or difficulty in changing this commitment. Mr. Jahnke stated he would like to see this language, and exactly what guarantees would be provided, as there were understandings that have not occurred. Council Member Quick asked Mr. Jahnke what understandings he was referring to. Mr. Jahnke stated one of these was in regard to the golf course, and the understanding that the taxpayer would never have to pay for this. Council Member Quick clarified this was never stated, and furthermore, it was never stated that the franchise fee would be abolished. He advised that the majority of the Council concluded they would look at eliminating the franchise fee, and would attempt to eliminate .5 percent every year, however, when it was determined this was not feasible, they eliminated .5 percent every two years. He stated no Council is tied by the actions of a previous Council. Mr. Jahnke requested the City research eliminating the golf course. He commented although it has been explained this can not be done due to the land, which was donated, a more in depth research, and discussion with the land donors in this regard might yield results, and provide that the residents are not burdened with the golf course. Mayor Coughlin stated when he first came into office he had researched this matter. He indicated that he and the Director of the golf course had made telephone calls to determine if this was a possibility, however, found that it was not. He explained this property is a conglomerate of many different properties and designations, and to attempt to do this would cost the City more money than it is worth. He advised he had seriously examined this matter at that time. Mayor Coughlin pointed out that the golf course, on one hand, is very successful and is operating at 120 percent of the estimate for a golf course of this type. He explained the problem arises in that the structure of the financing package is such that, even though the golf course is doing very well on the revenue side, it is still unable to make the interest payments on the bond. He stated it was hoped that in two to three years, the City would have the opportunity to refinance this bond, which will assist in resolving the current problems. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 Mr. Jahnke stated he was informed at a previous meeting that the golf course pickup truck was purchased for $28,000, however, the pamphlet of information Mayor Coughlin provided to him indicates that the pickup truck cost $35,000. Mayor Coughlin stated he was not aware of the print date of this paperwork, and it was likely generated prior to the actual purchase of the pickup truck, however, the actual out of pocket expense for the pickup truck was the amount the Mr. Hammerschmidt had indicated. He further advised that the City needed this truck. Mr. Jahnke stated he would not argue with this, however, he required clarification due to the discrepancy between the amount indicated on the paperwork, and the amount that was stated. He commented he was also informed that the old pickup truck would be traded in, however, he still sees this vehicle in the City fleet. Mayor Coughlin explained the old pickup truck was worth relatively little, in terms of selling it outright, due to its used condition, and a fair amount of mileage, therefore, the Golf Course Director retained it as a work vehicle, in lieu of purchasing another, which would be much more expensive. He pointed out that the Golf Course Director was attempting to save money in the long term, by utilizing the old pickup to haul landscape timbers, and so forth, and to use it up, instead of attempting to obtain a few dollars out of it. Council Member Stigney stated he had inquired if the Work Session meeting would be broadcast, as he first came into the meeting that evening. He stated he did not consider this meeting to be an envisioning or a brainstorming. He advised the actual budget for the year 2000 was discussed, and this involved a number of issues, including the Year 2000 Budget Review, review of the Park Dedication Capital Purchase Plan, consideration of the Interfund advance to the golf course, Assessment Policy Revision, Water Services Repair Policy, Pavement Survey, Snowplowing Equipment, consideration of electronic sign bid, and an ordinance for a public hearing policy. He stated all of these matters should be broadcast, and was disturbed that they were not. Mayor Coughlin stated this consideration had been discussed during the previous Council Retreat, and Council Member Stigney had not raised any issues at that time. Council Member Stigney stated the discussion at the Council Retreat was in regard to visioning and brainstorming of future means to handle the long term financial planning of the City, and was not specific to the Year 2000 Budget. He stated he took exception to Mayor Coughlin's comment. Council Member Stigney stated the Work Session discussion indicated the road reconstruction fund was not to be applied to road reconstruction as he understands the term, such as resurfacing, milling or overlaying, or fixing up a street. He stated this fund would have nothing to do with any of these things, and they are not defined as road reconstruction. He commented this presented a communication gap, in terms of the definition of road reconstruction. Mayor Coughlin advised as a point of order, the City policy has not been fully discussed at a Work Session, much less been adopted. He explained, therefore, to make a blanket statement that this is not the case, or to solidly stand, stating this is or is not the case, is in error. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 Council Member Stigney stated the documents contained in his packet are his reference. Mayor Coughlin clarified the point of order, in that the Council has not yet dealt with those documents, they are not official documents, and they have not been approved in either the first or second reading. Council Member Stigney stated this was correct, however, if he were Mr. Jahnke, and based upon the information Mayor Coughlin had conveyed in this regard, he would have an entirely different opinion of what is actually being presented. Mayor Coughlin clarified that nothing has been adopted, and therefore, it is subject to change. He pointed out he did not desire to promise anybody anything, even with regard to Council Member Stigney's statements, as the Council has opportunity to change these things at will, prior to adoption. Council Member Stigney commented that Mayor Coughlin's explanation was a perfect example of the miscommunication that is occurring. He stated if he were Mr. Jahnke, he would have an entirely different opinion than what is being proposed. Mayor Coughlin stated a point of order in that accusing the Council of miscommunication to the residents is patently unfair. Council Member Stigney remarked he believes this is exactly what the Council does. He stated that the $35,000 amount for the golf course pickup came from an August 13 Work Session document, which indicates "Actual Cost" and lists "Replacement Vehicle - $35,000." He advised if these are not actual costs, they should not be basing information on this. He explained that the entire document is based upon projections and actual costs, yet is not factual. He stated this was a perfect example of how miscommunication can occur. Mayor Coughlin stated Mr. Jahnke has now been shown the Bill of Sale for the pickup truck, and unless they lied when they were writing out the check, this is what the vehicle cost. Council Member Stigney remarked in his opinion, communication was the poorest thing he has seen this Council do. He stated he hopes the Council can begin to communicate effectively, so the residents can understand. Mayor Coughlin ruled this point out of order. There were no further requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5377, a Resolution Contemplating the Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Shed to be Located at 8270 Eastwood Road. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicants, Alan and Tammy Doroff, have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 384 square-foot shed in the backyard of their home located at 8270 Eastwood Road. He advised the area of this property is approximately .5 acres in size, and there is an in ground pool located in the backyard. He explained the proposed shed is to be constructed behind the in ground pool, and there is an existing shed in this location, which will be removed prior to the construction of the new shed. Planning Associate Ericson advised that all of the dimensional requirements for this type of construction are met, including the setback requirements and the percentage of rear yard that would be taken up by the shed. He noted the noted the neighboring property owner has a similar shed structure. He explained the proposed shed will be a barn like structure, approximately 15 feet in height, and a fence encloses the backyard, therefore, the shed would not be visible to any of the neighbors or from the street. Planning Associate Ericson stated this matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their October 6 meeting, at which time they examined the general conditional use permit requirements, adverse effects requirements, and the specific conditional use permit requirements for over sized sheds. He advised that all of the requirements are satisfied by this proposal, and the Commission, after receiving testimony from the applicants, felt very strongly that the conditional use permit request be approved, and have passed a resolution recommending approval to the City Council. Planning Associate Ericson stated based upon the information that staff researched, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff has drafted Resolution 5377, which approves a conditional use permit for the applicants to construct a 384 square-foot shed in their backyard. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicants were present. There was no public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Approve Resolution No.5377, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Shed for Alan and Tammy Doroff, 8270 Eastwood Road, Mounds View Planning Commission Case No. 571-99. Council Member Stigney stated this item was discussed thoroughly by the Planning Commission Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. B. Consideration of Resolution 5380, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit at 7638 Silver Lake Road. Planning Associate Ericson stated Jeffrey Hofstede, property owner at 7638 Silver Lake Road, has requested a wetland buffer permit to construct a home on a vacant lot, located south of County Road I. He stated the property owner has commenced some clearing and preliminary work on the property. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 Planning Associate Ericson provided the Council with a Wetland Study and Soil Boring Report which staff has forwarded to the City Engineer and the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated that Tony Brough of the Rice Creek Watershed District has been to the property, and has indicated that the wetland delineation is accurate and correct. Planning Associate Ericson advised the City Engineer has reviewed the soil borings and the delineation, and indicated that impact to the wetland would be minimal if any. He has recommended, however, if the permit is approved, a minimum 5-foot natural buffer area remain unspoiled and natural to assist in filtration of the water and runoff to insure that any runoff that enters the wetland has been thoroughly cleansed. Planning Associate Ericson referred to the site plan, which indicates the applicant has made every effort to minimize the impact to the wetland by distancing the structure as far from the wetland as possible. He noted the buffer encompasses 100 percent of the subject lot, and the complete structure and driveway will be within the buffer. He added this has been done in the past on other properties. Planning Associate Ericson stated the site plan appears to be good from staff's perspective, and based upon the reports of the Rice Creek Watershed District Engineers and the City Engineer recommends approval of the Wetland Buffer Permit request. He explained that Resolution No. 5380, which approves a Wetland Buffer Permit, does not guarantee that the applicant will be issued a building permit, as there are other issues with regard to soil suitability and the easements for sanitary sewer lines which require to be addressed. He explained the resolution very clearly indicates that approval of the Wetland Buffer Permit would in no way guarantee or implicitly guarantee that any type of building permit would be approved for this proposal. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant was present. Council Member Stigney noted this matter had not gone before the Planning Commission for consideration, and inquired if it would in the future. Planning Associate Ericson advised that Wetland Buffer Permits do not require consideration by the Planning Commission. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No. 5380, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit for Jeffrey Hofstede, 7638 Silver Lake Road, Planning Case 572-99, as Amended to Stipulate "The Stormwater from the Home be Directed Away from the Wetland to Allow for the Runoff to be Absorbed Into the Lawn Areas Instead of Being Guided Directly to the Wetland. In Addition, the Driveway Shall Be Constructed With Enough of a Slope to Direct Runoff to the North, Away From the Wetland." Council Member Stigney requested the resolution be amended to include the last two sentences of the staff report which indicate "The stormwater from the home be directed away from the wetland to allow for the runoff to be absorbed into the lawn areas instead of being guided directly to the wetland. In addition, the driveway should be constructed with enough of a slope to direct runoff to the north, away from the wetland." Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 Planning Associate Ericson stated this was the intent, and staff would clarify this in the language of the resolution. He added that staff would examine this matter when the building plans are reviewed. Mayor Coughlin asked if the motioner and seconder would agree to amend the motion. Council Members Thomason and Quick agreed. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. C. Review of Charter Commission Response to City Council Request for Consideration of Charter Amendments. City Administrator Whiting stated he has received a letter date October 14, 1999, from Julie Olsen, Chair of the Mounds View Charter Commission. He read the letter as follows: The Mounds View Charter Commission has reviewed your letter dated August 12, 1999. We will be needing additional information in order to complete the review of the charter revisions as requested. Point 1) Charter Section 3.01 —as to "council meetings" • We are requesting the city to provide us with the State law and or City code that the council is reciting from. Point 2) Charter Section 4.02—as to "filing for office" • Would like to see where in the State of Minnesota Constitution that this is addressed. • Would like the case law of Minnesota Term Limits Coalition V. Keefe. Point 3) Charter Section 5.05 —as to "initiative", "resolutions" • A copy of the city attorney's letter dated June 28, 1998 • Copy of the State law that your letter is referring to • Copies of Case law involving charter cities that your letter is referring to Point 4) "Voting majority for zoning amendments" • Need state law definition of 2/3rds majority. City Attorney Long advised, in regard to Point 1, Minnesota State Statutes, Section 471.705 Subdivision 1C (b), pertaining to Special Meetings state that at least three days notice is required prior to holding a special meeting. He explained, at the time the City Charter was written, the Special Meeting Section did not exist, therefore, the Charter indicates "upon at least 24 hours notice." He advised the Charter is presently in conflict with State Statutes, and State Law, generally applied, indicates that the charters of cities need to be in compliance with State Statutes Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 and the State Constitution. He indicated that copies of the State Law would be provided to the Charter Commission. City Attorney Long advised, in regard to Point 2, Article 7, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution states the universal eligibility to hold office and sets forth the eligibility criteria, which indicate any person who is 21 years of age and eligible to vote is eligible to serve and run for office. He explained that in the city of Minneapolis, a charter amendment was proposed by initiative, which would have placed term limits in the Minneapolis Charter to restrict the number of terms, however, the Minneapolis City Council refused to put this on the ballot, and relied upon case law that stated the City Council is authorized to refuse to put something on the ballot if it is manifestly unconstitutional. City Attorney Long pointed out that the question was if term limits adopted by a local city charter commission or by initiative were unconstitutional. He advised that the Term Limits Coalition V. Keefe case decision determined that the Minnesota State Constitution, Article 7, Section 6, is the only place where eligibility for office can be determined, therefore, any term limit provision of any City in the State of Minnesota, or any term limits adopted by the State Legislature would be invalid and unconstitutional, because only the Constitution of the State of Minnesota could be amended to allow for this. He stated copies of this case would be provided to the Charter Commission for review, as well. City Attorney Long advised because there has been a ruling of the Minnesota State Supreme Court, there needs to be some action to bring the Charter into compliance with that ruling. He explained at the time term limits had been brought to the ballot in Mounds View, there was no ruling by the Supreme Court, and at that point, the City Council inquired if they should refuse to put this measure on the ballot. He indicated they requested the City Attorney's office review this matter, and since there was no clear cut guidance, they determined it would probably be safer to put the matter on the ballot, as they could not know if it was a certainty and official. However, the measure passed, and after it passed, the Supreme Court ruled, in Minneapolis' case, that the provision was unconstitutional. He explained that had this ruling come down before the measure came forward, the City Attorney's Office would have advised that should it not be brought to ballot. City Attorney Long stated in regard to Point 3, the Mounds View Charter indicates that ordinances, resolutions, and motions are subject to referendum and also can be the subject of initiatives. He stated the City Attorney's earlier opinion, as indicated in the letter dated June 29, 1998, pointed out the series of cases in Minnesota by which the courts have indicated the proper subject of a referendum or initiative must be a legislative matter, and there is specific language in the Statute that indicates only ordinances shall be the subject of initiatives or referendum. He explained that under the principal that all city charters must be consistent with State Statutes, the State Statute has specifically named ordinances, and not resolutions, as proper subject matter, and that is where it was concluded this would apply to ordinances only. City Attorney Long stated this has been indicated through cases in the Courts of Minnesota as far back as 1925, and has been a longstanding principle in Minnesota. He stated the cases cited in the City Attorney's June 29, 1998 letter address this matter, and these cases were available for review at the library, however, in consideration of the City's copy budget, copies have not been made. He added that if copies are requested, they will be provided. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 City Attorney Long advised, in regard to Point 4, there is a State Statute which indicates for certain types of voting amendments, there is a two-thirds majority, however, they did not specify the number of members of the Council. He explained, in the case of the City Council, with 5 members, three out of five would not be two-thirds, and this is somewhat confusing, in that it would actually require 66 percent, in the case of a Zoning Amendment. He stated the language of the Charter indicates that all ordinances passed by the majority of the Council, unless specified in State Statutes, or elsewhere in the Charter, are adopted. City Attorney Long advised unless State Law specifies something more than a majority, which it does in the case of Zoning Amendments which require a two-thirds vote, the Charter provision is applicable, and only a majority of the full Council is required. City Attorney Long noted there are provisions in the Code, for example, a four-fifths voting requirement for a conditional use permit, which the City Attorney's office has indicated is inconsistent with the Charter, and should probably be amended within the City Code. He pointed out that the Charter Commission might decide to keep this in the Charter, and could therefore specify that a four-fifths vote is acceptable for certain types of actions. He indicated, however, the general rule of the Charter is the majority vote, three total votes, and not the majority of a quorum, adopts an ordinance. City Attorney Long advised if there was a grievance between the Charter Commission and the City Council, the Charter Commission could establish a higher threshold for certain types of votes, however, this would have to be clearly spelled out in the Charter, and at present, it is not. Mayor Coughlin stated at the City Council meeting on July 27, a motion was made and approved by the majority of the Council to grant a 60-day period to the Charter Commission to provide a response to the specific items listed on Attorney Scott Riggs memorandum to the City, which highlighted these four points. He commented on the face of this matter, in that the Chair of the Charter Commission was present at that meeting, as well as two Charter Commission members in the audience, and two Charter Commission members who serve on the Council, the Charter Commission was well aware that the 60-day time period was coming to a close. He stated City Administrator Whiting sent a letter indicating the Council's desires on August 12, and even if the process was to have commenced on that date, the 60 days have expired. He stated he finds it disheartening that a group that met at least twice, if not three times during that time period, waited until the specified time had expired to answer the Council's question with a question. He pointed out if there were concerns or questions, they should have been asked sooner rather than later. He stated, however, to come after the fact, and require more information and further clarification, when the majority of the information could have been received in a very short amount of time, or found on the internet or at the library, leaves this response to fall flat. He remarked at some point, the authority of the Council is being challenged in asking a question of the question, after the fact, whereas, the questions would have been valid if asked within the 60- day time frame. Mayor Coughlin stated the matter of openness has been discussed at the Council level. He indicated he extended a letter to the Chair of the Charter Commission 7 to 8 months prior, offering to televise the Charter Commission meetings, as all of the other meetings are presently televised. He advised the Charter Commission is not an entity of the City, but rather an entity of Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 the Courts, and the Council has no direct authority to order the Charter Commission to appear on television. Mayor Coughlin pointed out that it has been mentioned, even in the minutes of the previous meeting that were approved, that the Charter is an "alternative" to the City Council. He stated therefore, he is exceedingly disappointed that this group, which is charged with preserving and protecting the Constitution of Mounds View, the people's document, would even consider changes to this document without providing the people every opportunity to be aware of what is being discussed. He stated, in his opinion, this is truly a case of horrible lack of communication. Mayor Coughlin requested the Council allow him, once again, to extend to the Charter Commission the opportunity to televise their meetings on the City's cable system so that all the people can at least passively partake in this discussion. He stated it appears intellectually dishonest to focus upon televising all other meetings, which was a subject of his campaign and one of the Council's first actions, and not to televise the Charter Commission meetings. He stated he is an advocate of presenting these discussions to the public. Mayor Coughlin informed the Council that the Charter Commission has a budget of $1,100, however, their spending as of the previous Friday, was in excess of$2,500. He stated they have spent their budget over one and one half times what was allocated to them by the City. He indicated there is no accountability, because they are an entity of the Courts, and not the Council or the City, per se, and what more argument is necessary than to broadcast this. He stated he had contacted one of the individual members of the Charter Commission who had assisted in writing the City Charter and asked when the Charter was being written, and all of the legal work and research was being conducted, whether or not that Charter Commission exceeded their budget. He stated he was informed that there was no budget at that time, and the expenses were paid out of their own pockets. He added to this individual's recollection, no Charter Commission in the history of the City, since the Charter's inception has spent its budget, however, this Commission has exceeded it. Mayor Coughlin stated in light of this, and in combination with a question presented as a response to the Council's question, he finds it futile to continue to play "trench warfare" and spend the time of the Council, and money and legal staff to further talk around these issues, which history has indicated are simply discussed over and over again. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/ Quick. To Authorize the City to Initiate the Necessary Civil Legal Action Seeking a Declaratory Judgement and Court Order Requiring the City Charter Commission to Amend the City Charter to Bring it Into Compliance with The Minnesota State Constitution, State Statutes, and the Judicial Decision of Minnesota Courts. Council Member Quick inquired if the motion would be better stated to direct staff to initiate this action. City Attorney Long advised the intent of this motion provides that the City initiate the action either through staff or the City Attorney, and either wording is acceptable. Council Member Quick seconded the motion. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 Council Member Stigney stated as a member of the Charter Commission, he took offense to some of the comments made by Mayor Coughlin. He advised the Charter Commission meets only once a month, and at the first meeting after the Council's request, the Charter Commission reviewed the request and drafted a response, which required approval at the next meeting, the following month. He explained this response was just approved at the last meeting of the Charter Commission and forwarded back to the Council. He pointed out these were valid questions asked by the Charter Commission, and a vote was taken in response to the Council's inquiry to make changes to the Charter. Council Member Stigney stated the questions asked are all valid, and the city Attorney has presently responded to them, which was what the Charter Commission was requesting. He stated for the Council to overthrow the Charter Commission's authority to conduct their meetings, during their schedule, which is once a month is wrong. He stated he opposed this motion. Council Member Stigney stated Mayor Coughlin has indicated the Charter Commission has more than doubled the expense of their budget, however, to his knowledge, the Charter Commission has never received a bill for anything, and has not spent anything. He advised that if there is a billing to the Charter Commission, it would have to come from the City, and there is no billing. He advised that before a statement is made that the Charter Commission has overspent, the City should bill them, because as far as they are aware, the Commission has not spent one nickel. Mayor Coughlin stated it has, and it did. Council member Stigney inquired when the City would bill them. Mayor Coughlin stated he would move to request the City Attorney look into who is responsible for this overage. He stated otherwise, the taxpayers of the City will have to pay for these items, and this is an appointed body, not even an elected body, that is spending money. Council Member Stigney stated to his awareness the Charter Commission has spent nothing. He reiterated if there is a billing, the City should submit the billing, and indicate what it is for. He explained they should not just indicate the Commission has overspent their budget by $2,500. He stated this was news to him, and he was a member of the Charter Commission. Mayor Coughlin suggested Council Member Stigney consult with the Charter Commission Chair in this regard. Council Member Stigney stated he has, and they discussed this at their last meeting. He explained as far as anyone on the Charter Commission is aware, they have not spent anything out of their budget. Council Member Quick moved the question, and closed off the debate. Ayes—3 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone desired clarification of the motion. There were no requests for clarification. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 Ayes—3 Nays—(Stigney) Motion carried. D Consideration of an Interfund Advance to the Golf Course Fund. City Administrator Whiting stated at various meetings, the Council has discussed the future cash flow at the golf course, and what to do about the projected shortfalls on two occasions in the future. He indicated he and Finance Director Kessel met with Attorney Jim O'Meara, of Briggs and Morgan, who advises the City with regard to the TIF issues. He explained that Mr. O'Meara has clarified some of the State Statutes and State Auditor opinions regarding the existing TIF funds, and whether or not a portion of those funds could be utilized to assist the golf course in a loan situation. City Administrator Whiting stated the Council is somewhat in agreement that some type of loan would be appropriate for the golf course. He noted concerns expressed earlier in the meeting in terms of utilizing taxpayer funds for the golf course, and explained that this would be a means to avoid that. He advised that further discussion of this matter is required, as it is a situation that would last for a few years, and the Council should determine the means by which they would approach this option and address the concerns. Finance Director Kessel stated staff has met with the City's bond counsel and TIF attorney, who have advised there is a provision, based upon the interpretation of the State Auditor's Office, which indicates that any interest earned on TIF funds prior to July 1, 1997 are not TIF dollars, and therefore, can be taken out of the TIF fund and utilized for other purposes. He explained at the staff level, it has been discussed that the City may wish to pull out those funds and set up an Economic Development Fund, to provide that when the TIF Districts expire in approximately 2014, the City will have some tools available for economic development. He stated these funds could be used as the City sees fit. He pointed out that based upon the projections, the structure of the golf course financing is such that it is scheduled to be paid off in approximately 2013, at which time, they could shift debt payments to repay the loan back to the TIF fund. He added that another positive factor is that once the TIF Districts expire, the City would still have funds available for economic development, because at present, there are no other funds available for this purpose. City Administrator Whiting stated staff is requesting direction regarding this option. He suggested staff formulate a policy action for the Council to take, and review this at the following Work Session, and deal with it at a Council meeting, after that point. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To Direct Staff to Formulate a Policy Action for the Council to Take, and to Hold Over Consideration of this Matter Until the EDA and EDC Meet to Discuss TIF at Some Length, But in the Meantime, To Authorize Staff to Come Up with Any and All Necessary Paperwork So that The Council Can Move Upon it Quickly if the Need Arises. City Administrator Whiting inquired if this should be structured towards TIF funds, or other available funds. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 Mayor Coughlin stated this should be the TIF Interest Fund, which has been called the Economic Development Fund for lack of a better title. He stated he would agree this is the fund that should be utilized, and it appeared to be the consensus of the Council at a previous Work Session. Finance Director Kessel pointed out that one of the issues the State Auditor takes exception to is whether or not the funds are authorized. He suggested, in conjunction with this policy action, staff research preparing a new budget as part of the TIF plan, so that if there is ever a question, it can be referenced. He explained that since the Council and the EDC have not yet met, one component of the discussion would be how to spend any other TIF dollars, or possible decertification or turning some of the tax dollars back. Council Member Stigney stated in that the EDA and the EDC has not had the opportunity to go over the TIF plan for the City, and it was somewhat premature to take the first steps toward making a loan tot he golf course from this fund. He recommended they hold of action until after that meeting. Mayor Coughlin inquired regarding the time frame for this matter. Finance Director Kessel stated clarification was required by January 1, 2000, and this was the critical date, however, they could wait until December and this should not present a problem. Mayor Coughlin stated as the seconder, he would agree to lay this matter over until the meeting with the EDC and EDA, and to amend the motion to authorize staff to get everything in order, including all of the TIF considerations, and to begin the process. He inquired if Council Member Quick would agree to this amendment. Council Member Quick stated he would agree to this. City Administrator Whiting commented that whatever action takes place, the golf course will repay the loan in total, plus full interest. Mayor Coughlin clarified that the motion is to hold over consideration of this matter until the EDA and EDC meet to discuss TIF at some length, but in the meantime, to authorize staff to come up with any and all necessary paperwork so that the Council can move upon it quickly if the need arises. Council Member Stigney stated staff should also research other funding sources for the golf course. Mayor Coughlin stated a variety of funding sources were listed and discussed at previous Work Sessions. City Administrator Whiting requested clarification, noting that it was his understanding that staff should research solely the interest generated off of TIF, prior to that date. Mayor Coughlin stated it was his understanding that this was the consensus of the Council at a previous Work Session. City Administrator Whiting pointed out, of the options available to the City, this option is furthest from the General Fund, not only at present but also in the future. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 19 Council Member Stigney stated he had no objection to proceeding in this manner, as long as they will also look at other funding sources, so they are not just completely ignored. He stated the residents of the City and the Council should choose the preferred method of all. Mayor Coughlin stated the Council has discussed this matter, and it was the consensus to pursue the Economic Development Fund, because it is farthest away from the taxpayers, and they were attempting to stay as far as possible from involving any taxpayer dollars in this matter. Council Member Stigney stated he had no objections to this, however, he did not want to "close the door" on other avenues of revenue. Mayor Coughlin explained the consensus of the Council was to "close the door" and move forward with a plan. Council Member Stigney explained they do not have the plan. He stated the "big plan" is not yet determined. City Administrator Whiting explained that staff can research other sources of funding. He pointed out, however, a meeting for the future of the Economic Development Fund and TIF accounts between the EDA and EDC is still in order, and if after that point, that board sees fit to accept this option, it will proceed. Mayor Coughlin clarified the specific motion is to move ahead and direct staff to conduct their research under the assumption that the end result will be the Economic Development Fund, and to work in that vein, however, not to "close the door"on other sources of funding. Council Member Stigney stated this was acceptable. City Administrator Whiting explained this funding source would be farthest from the General Fund, however, these funds are generated by the taxpayers in the TIF District. Council Member Stigney inquired if this funding was to offset the bonding issue or the development issues at the golf course. Finance Director Kessel advised that these funds were to offset the bond reserves. He explained that the City does not have sufficient resources to cover the bond. Mayor Coughlin explained that because of the funding structure at the golf course, there is a short term deficit in that bond fund, and this needs to be offset, and will be paid back in full, when the golf course gets out from underneath the bond fund. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. E. Anoka County-Blaine Airport Advisory Commission Appointees. City Administrator Whiting stated staff has advertised openings for two individuals to represent Mounds View on a 16-member board, along with three other cities, representing various airport issues. He stated staff has not received any applicants for these positions, at this time, and advised that the Council may make these appointments, if they so choose. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 Mayor Coughlin stated he would be willing to participate on this commission, however, he is already attending meetings on a daily basis. He stated he would be agreeable to attend the meeting in the short term, and inquired regarding he date of the first meeting. City Administrator Whiting stated he would expect the first meeting to be held either in November, or early December. Mayor Coughlin stated the Council will not officially meet until November 15, and the first meeting of the Advisory Commission may be held prior to that. He inquired if it would be in order for the City Administrator and himself to deputize two individuals in the interim, and have the Council affirm these appointments at the next meeting. City Administrator Whiting stated this would be acceptable. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Quick. To Authorize the Mayor and the City Administrator to Secure Two Individuals for the Anoka County-Blaine Airport Advisory Commission in the Interim, and Bring the Names Back to the Council for Formal Approval at an Upcoming Council Meeting. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. F. Consideration of Electronic Sign Bids. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the electronic sign has been discussed by both the present, and several previous Councils, and $40,000 has been set aside in this year's budget for the project. Staff has solicited bids for the sign and received a bid from Aim Electronics for a one-line sign at $30,575, and a two-line sign at $46,391, with $345 for freight. Staff also received a bid from Atra Electronics for a one-line sign at $29,104.32, and a two-line sign at $46,529.85, with$350 for freight. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated Administrative Assistant Tracy Juell conducted the research on this matter, and contacted communities that utilize these signs. He explained the city of Rosemont, which is similar to the City of Mounds View in terms of the relatively high-speed highway, has recommended a two-line sign, to provide for better visualization of the message. He pointed out the total sign budget is $40,000, and staff requesting an additional $7,038 to purchase the low bid. He stated staff has requested the Finance Director to identify any additional funding available, and he has indicated the Special Projects Fund, General Fund Reserve, or the 1999 Contingency Fund as possible sources. Council Member Stigney stated the electronic sign was originally to be 50 percent funded with TIF, and inquired if this was still possible. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated he had inquired of Finance Director Kessel who felt that the TIF contribution to the sign was very close to the maximum amount that the City could justify. Council Member Stigney inquired if the sign would utilize fixed or moving letters. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 Director of Public Works explained that the letters were fixed. He added that a short message would flash, and a longer message would travel across the sign. Council Member Stigney stated the number of words they typically utilize on the current signage would not fit on the sign scale indicated in the staff report. He inquired if the proposed sign would be able to convey they type of message the City currently displays on the existing sign. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the proposed sign would provide viewing of more words per second than the current sign. Council Member Stigney inquired if he would be able to read the entire message on the sign as he drives by, and be able to understand the complete message. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the sign would scroll through three or four messages at a time, and if a person was stopped at the traffic light, they may be able to read 7 to 8 minutes worth of messages. Council Member Stigney clarified that as he presently drives by City Hall, he is able to see a number of words displayed on the sign, which convey a message. He explained there are an average number of words utilized in these messages, and inquired if, on average, this sign would have the ability to convey the same messages that are currently displayed. He pointed out this was important, as shorter messages are not typically utilized. He inquired if the proposed sign would indicate a loss or a gain of message capacity. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the electronic sign would represent a gain. He explained the present sign utilizes four lines with 35 letters that are visible at one time, however, the proposed sign, which is more legible and visually appealing, utilizes four lines, with two flashing first, and two reappearing after the first part of the message has been read. Council Member Stigney inquired if two lines would convey the same amount of message in the same time frame as the four-line sign that presently exists. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated it would. He explained that some messages would run for 30 seconds, and convey more, and others could be conveyed in 10 second. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To Award the Bid Amount of $47,038.55 to Aim Electronics, and Authorize Staff to Proceed with the Purchase of a Two-Line Electronic Message Board, With the Shortfall of$7,038.55 to Come Out of the Contingency Fund. Council Member Quick stated this sign will improve communications by a quantum leap. Mayor Coughlin requested staff advise in regard to an additional funding source. Finance Director Kessel stated the contingency on the 1999 budget was $48,000, and two items for which they transferred some money out of the Contingency Fund this year. He explained there was a transfer in the range of$6,000 to $8,000, for what purpose, he was uncertain, and the airport litigation, which is over budget, is in the range of approximately $20,000 to $30,000. He stated there was possibly one other item on the expense side of this fund. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 22 Finance Director Kessel stated on the revenue side of the Contingency Fund, the Building Permits have substantially increased from earlier projections, and clearer projections would be available toward the end of the year. He advised at the end of the previous year, the unreserved fund balance was approximately $200,000, and the fund balance, in total, was approximately 3.2 million dollars. He indicated it would be acceptable from staff's perspective to take the additional funds from the Contingency Fund, as long as the Council recognizes there are several other items that are over budget, and have yet to be dealt with. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. G. Snowplowing Equipment. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff has requested funds for a snowplow to be utilized for a pickup that was purchased for the year 2000. He explained the snowplow would be used to supplement plowing operations on the new trails that have been paved, as well as the City Hall parking lot, Community Center, and to maintain areas around the golf course, well houses, etc. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the Public Works Facility was budgeted for a portable lift for vehicles this year, however, after researching this matter, staff has learned that the lift they were considering is no longer available, and the company which manufactures it has gone out of business. He explained the only lift available is not portable, and there is insufficient space available to install a permanent lift and obtain full utilization of it. Therefore, staff is requesting to utilize the $3,500 initially requested for the lift, plus the $1,000 remaining from the water truck purchase, to purchase a snowplow this year, which would provide a full years utilization, and eliminate this item from the Year 2000 Budget. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Staff's Request to Utilize the $3,500 Initially Requested for a Portable Lift, Plus $1,000 Remaining from the Water Truck Purchase, to Purchase Snow Plow Equipment, and Eliminate this Item from the Year 2000 Budget. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. H. Pavement Survey. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated, in light of the renewed pavement rehabilitation program, which will be in place soon, staff is recommending a complete pavement survey be conducted in the City. He explained a Pavement Management Program was initiated in 1995/1996, and at that time, staff performed a survey of all pavements throughout the City, and gave them a rating. He stated staff has performed a number of maintenance activities on those streets, however, they have not had the time or manpower to proceed with a new rating. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated it was essential to commence the new policy and program with good, effective ratings, to provide the residents can look at their streets in comparison with other streets, and understand the differing recommendations for rehab procedures on the streets. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff has requested Braun InterTech, the maker of the Department of Public Works Pavement Management software, to provide a quote for conducting Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 23 the pavement rating, data input, and GIS link to the software, so staff can make the necessary presentations for the different ratings. He explained that an itemized quote has been provided for review, which indicates $6,000 for the rating, $1,800 for the data input, and $1,200 to provide the software link. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated there is approximately $6,500 remaining in the budget for the Pavement Management Fund, which is the fund utilized for seal coating, patching and miscellaneous curb and gutter repair. He explained that earlier in the year, staff recommended, and the Council approved approximately $25,000 to be spent out of this fund to pay for the path that was constructed along County Road I. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff has requested the Finance Director to determine if there are additional funds available to obtain the remaining $2,500 for the pavement survey. He stated the Finance Director has indicated the trail along County Road I is a very good qualifier for TIF funds, therefore, if the Council chooses to fund the trail with TIF, there would be adequate funding available to pay for the survey. Council Member Stigney inquired if this was TIF interest or actual TIF funds. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated these would be actual TIF funds. Council Member Thomason inquired regarding the life span of the pavement surveys. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this would depend upon the pavements and the maintenance schedule. He explained that most cities rate their pavements every two years, or will attempt to rate a quarter of the city every year, to provide for a two or four-year survey. Council Member Thomason inquired if the pavement survey would be valid until 2002, and be an accurate reflection of the road ratings, if it was conducted this year. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this was correct. He pointed out that if the survey was to proceed at this time, it could be completed by the end of November. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Quick. To Approve Staff's Recommendation to Take the Full Amount of the Trail Funds From TIF, and Utilize $2,500 to Conduct a Pavement Survey. Council Member Stigney clarified that the pavement survey funds were to come from TIF. Mayor Coughlin requested clarification of the motion, and inquired if the motioner and seconder intended the monies for the trail come out of TIF, as well as the funding for the pavement survey. Council Member Thomason stated this was correct, exactly as recommended on the staff report. Council Member Quick stated this was his understanding. Finance Director Kessel advised the TIF funds are to be utilized for social and recreational purposes, and inquired if the Council desired to take out the entire $27,000, or just $2,500 for the pavement survey. Council Member Stigney advised staff was only requesting $2,500 for the pavement survey. Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 24 Mayor Coughlin pointed out that if they were to indicate that the trail is a public function and apply TIF dollars to it, they may as well allocate fully to that account. Council Member Thomason asked Finance Director Kessel what problems might arise in terms of splitting the funding sources of the trail, and taking only a portion from TIF. Finance Director Kessel advised that taking a portion of the funds from the General Fund and a portion from TIF would be acceptable, as well as taking the full amount from TIF. Council Member Thomason stated her motion would stand per the recommendation of staff, to take the full amount of the trail funds from TIF. Council Member Quick agreed. Council Member Stigney pointed out that as the EDA and EDC may have different thoughts on the matter, as it involves the TIF plan. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. I. Consideration of Resolution 5381, a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Limited Use Agreement to Permit a Driveway to be Installed over and across Unimproved City Right of Way. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the September 20, 1999 City Council meeting, Spencer Mistelske was before the Council to request permission to allow for a driveway to be constructed on unimproved LaPort Drive, just off of Edgewood Drive, and south of Highway 118. He explained this area has often been referred to as the "Little Woods," and there has been much discussion regarding these lots, and much interest among the public to build upon these lots. He pointed out, however, a number of issues make these lots somewhat undesirable to build upon, including the location of the wetlands in the area, and that there is no direct access to an improved roadway. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City may consider a Limited Use Agreement to allow for a driveway to be constructed over the unimproved LaPort Drive right-of-way, if a wetland study is performed, which determines that such driveway would not impact the wetland, and the lots are deemed buildable. He explained the applicant has retained a company to perform a delineation of the site, and they have provided a survey that indicates where the wetland has been delineated, and also where the 100-foot buffer is, in relation to the two lots, as well as LaPort Drive. He pointed out that the wetland is a significant distance from these lots and the 100-foot buffer, and is also at such a distance that even if the structure and driveway were constructed on the third lot, as proposed, they would not infringe upon the 100-foot buffer. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Limited Use Agreement before the Council is similar to that utilized in the past for a similar situation. He explained the Limited Use Agreement has been revised to take into consideration the specific details of this proposal, and has been reviewed by the City Attorney who has indicated it is in proper legal form, and would protect the City's interest in the event of any potential liabilities. He advised that there is a stipulation that Mounds View City Council October 25, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 25 the applicant would be responsible for any and all appropriate assessments, in the event LaPort Drive is improved, and the applicant has agreed to this. Planning Associate Ericson stated, in light of this information, and Council's direction at the September 20 meeting, staff has brought before the Council the Limited Use Agreement, and Resolution No. 5381, which authorizes the execution of the Limited Use Agreement. He advised staff recommends a stipulation be added to indicate that if it is shown that the wetland delineation is inaccurate, the applicant would be responsible for obtaining a Wetland Buffer Permit. He explained that Rice Creek Watershed District was unable to examine the site prior to the Council meeting to verify the accuracy of the delineation. He pointed out, however, SEH staff and other individuals have been to the site, and staff has prepared a site plan which indicates staff's understanding of the location of the wetland, and it is in agreement with the indications provide by SEH and their wetland specialist. He stated therefore, so staff feels very confident that the delineation is accurate, however, in the event that the buffer is closer than is thought, the applicant would be required to come before the Council for a Wetland Buffer Permit. City Attorney Long advised that this action would be to authorize the execution of the Limited Use Agreement, with the stipulation pertaining to the Wetland Buffer Permit added as part of the execution. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution No. 5381, a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Limited Use Agreement to Permit the Installation, Use and Maintenance of a Driveway Over and Across Unimproved City Right of Way, As Stipulated to Indicate If It Is Shown that the Wetland Delineation is Inaccurate, the Applicant Will Be Responsible for Obtaining a Wetland Buffer Permit. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, November 1, 1999—6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, November 15, 1999—7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. r 2 , . ----•*".4.1.4.',,,.-,-- ti,i.c.„,c3r.49-1‘1,\,,,,,„\',.‘ .I,:,:,, ._.,/,',,,., Y.',-,........,. (,,iee. ) '...,,,,,,,, ''--::^'- --7,_0, i. .. 4 4 .: ; 1'1''''0?"., •:', ,'Y i• -''' I ----1 -,N-;--) . .. . . 1 OUNnS 1 t i : . . it_ 1 -- _ , ., , - - IS -'. ,IEV\./:' ., . :..., .. 1 e7;_, I. - i--- -,, ) co: .., r A -v---,% i : , L, p,..s, ,,,3 P. 1 r) i C- 4 j Service ..,.:. , .,-; -f SC72 t f d to i.-...,.,.. Na i 1 11.-.1. Kitty) r1-ic- ic o, ' , ,., .. ., , . .,_. . ,i 17 31 r)c)z-e c i Z C1-2 a 1-2 d r e c o g r2 1't i c).r2 ; . ', •• ,). - ' ol her hLy_rricr- ',2nthListstic attitude, .. . . , . • • i a n cl 1 z.: jze -a y-s o s. E- ::-..,-c e t I o 12 a I Service to th e CI [ / ''-' ir Mo Le n ds Vi ew . .. . , . - ..,,.... . , ,2-1- ,a , r \ 11://ith SincereSincereratitude, , 1 ' Si # ' - •Ni()Ufs\--1) --c' yr 1: l'i rrTY COU ' CL g STAFF ft,', ..,',.• . . e I- 999 11 '' (:‘,/-4,.,:::. :.::, -',t;r:.) ,--' . . - _ . ,-,• ' , •,.. , .,r . \ ' ',0 ' ___,V!'":-,1-07 ,•-• i ,s. !,i,„," ,,, ,,L,:-- '-''_‘`' ;-,-, - .',:r•- .&,2114 ,i,-''''',,, . '_', ' . ) , 'f. . ' '- . _..allfl":;::' ,)''''"'-' -'‘'I : -,? -...7.• '' : '7,-‘ '-\'''''' 144 :P:i• -!-Ite•.-r-' ' ''''', ;,---. -..:,; ,i. -;-'if ,.- t, e - 7 /1 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: 13772 through 13781 in the amount of$ 18,233.30 101544 through 101686 in the amount of$ 353,013.18 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED: $ 371,246.48 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 11/16/99 by the vote ayes nayes. Mayor Clerk-Administrator Date: 11/12/1999 Time: 08:35:47 City of Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 1 FM Entry - Invoice - Check Register Ranges: Bank #: (A) Check Date: (A) Check #: (L) 101544, 101545, 101546, 101547, 101548, 101549, 101550, 101551, 101552, 101553, 101554 Options: Check # Sort Only: N Format: 1 # of copies: 1 Bank # Check Date Vendor # Vendor Name Check # Type Amount 1 10/21/1999 U7300 U. S. Postal Service 101544 R 1,000.00 10/26/1999 C8500 Crysteel Truck Equipment 101545 R 3,381.17 10/26/1999 E5030 Elegant Thymes Catering 101546 R 140.75 10/26/1999 L5030 League of Minnesota Cities Ins 101547 R 518.81 10/26/1999 R7100 Roberts Beverage Service 101548 R 2,960.52 10/26/1999 55260 Sims Security 101549 R 94.51 10/26/1999 T1100 T R Computer Sales, Inc. 101550 R 249.00 10/26/1999 W6000 Charles Whiting 101551 R 1,123.51 10/26/1999 E5030 Elegant Thymes Catering 101552 R 6,635.42 10/29/1999 W0555 H. T. Wakefield 101554 R 11,750.00 Total Regular: 27,853.69 Total Manual: .00 Total Regular & Manual: 27,853.69 Total Voided: .00 Bank Total: 27,853.69 Grand Total: 27,853.69 Date: 11/10/1999 Time: 15:20:11 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 13772 ICMA Retirement Trust ICMA for 11/04 payroll 4,119.67 Total for Chk 13772 4,119.67* 13773 Edward Jones Money Market 125.00 Total for Chk 13773 125.00* 13774 Law Enforcement Labor union dues 462.00 Total for Chk 13774 462.00* 13775 Minnesota Child Suppor child support for 11/04 690.90 Total for Chk 13775 690.90* 13776 MINNESOTA STATE RETIRE State retirement for 11/ 432.69 Total for Chk 13776 432.69* 13777 NCPERS Life Insurance PERA life ins for Dec 81.00 Total for Chk 13777 81.00* 13778 Public Employees Retir PERA for 11/04 9,600.25 Total for Chk 13778 9,600.25* 13779 Sedgwick E-SNL life/dental ins for 11/0 4360 2,113.79 Total for Chk 13779 2,113.79* 13780 Twin City Federal Mort mortgage for 11/04 488.00 Total for Chk 13780 488.00* 13781 Western Bank saving 11/04 120.00 Total for Chk 13781 120.00* 101556 Northern States Power 7545 Groveland Rd.-Well 4823 5,897.50 Total for Chk 101556 5,897.50* 101557 Michael Ulrich Mileage Reimbursement-Oc 4475 37.50 Total for Chk 101557 37.50* Date: 11/10/1999 Time: 15:20:11 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 2 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101559 A M E Group Red-E-Mix 4650 907.38 Total for Chk 101559 907.38* 101560 A T & T Phone Bill 4901 4.42 Total for Chk 101560 4.42* 101561 A-1 Acrylics Lexan 4900 577.21 Total for Chk 101561 577.21* 101562 Ace Solid Waste, Inc. City Hall/Police 4160 492.80 Total for Chk 101562 492.80* 101563 Action Systems Set up Printer and progr 4160 548.00 Total for Chk 101563 548.00* 101564 Airtouch 799-2587 4823 407.44 Total for Chk 101564 407.44* 101565 American Office Produc Business Cards-Reed 4130 328.12 Total for Chk 101565 328.12* 101566 The American Stores Muffler, Clamp 4360 61.00 Total for Chk 101566 61.00* 101567 Arizona Manufacturing Logo on Disc 4901 25.00 Total for Chk 101567 25.00* 101568 Kathy Baehr Meter Refund 40.00 Total for Chk 101568 40.00* 101569 Batteries Plus Battery 4462 59.99 Total for Chk 101569 59.99* 101570 Becky Madsen/dba Custo Cleaning-Community Cente 4730 1,717.50 Total for Chk 101570 1,717.50* 101571 Beisswengers Ferrules, Hardware 4826 186.62 Total for Chk 101571 186.62* 101572 Best Buy Microcassettes 4200 29.78 Total for Chk 101572 29.78* 101573 Biffs, Inc. 4900 600.29 Total for Chk 101573 600.29* 101574 Bituminous Roadways, I Bituminous 4360 84,000.00 Total for Chk 101574 84,000.00* 101575 Bob's Personal Coffee Coffee 4160 71.98 Total for Chk 101575 71.98* Date: 11/10/1999 Time: 15:20:12 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 3 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101576 Bredemus Hardware Co., Latchgard 4823 30.35 Total for Chk 101576 30.35* 101577 Bumper to Bumper Part for '94 Ford Taurus 4462 12.55 Total for Chk 101577 12.55* 101578 Cal-Pacific Products Alum.Pipe, Air Hoses 4462 479.49 Total for Chk 101578 479.49* 101579 Capitol Siding and Win Permit Refund 164.90 Total for Chk 101579 164.90* 101580 Century College Legal Update Class-No Sh 4200 20.00 Total for Chk 101580 20.00* 101581 Certified Laboratories Blot, Spot-Trate 4350 724.27 Total for Chk 101581 724.27* 101583 Cintas - 748 Uniform Rental 4823 818.15 Total for Chk 101583 818.15* 101584 Commissioner of Transp Traffic Signal-Edgewood 4470 20,420.00 Total for Chk 101584 20,420.00* 101585 Construction Bulletin Ad-Consulting Engineer 4470 52.20 Total for Chk 101585 52.20* 101586 Corporate Presentation 25% Deposit-Projector,Sc 4350 2,100.00 Total for Chk 101586 2,100.00* 101587 Cottens, Inc. Air Filter 4462 7.22 Total for Chk 101587 7.22* 101588 Cross Nurseries, Inc. Trees & Shrubs 4650 678.67 Total for Chk 101588 678.67* 101589 Crysteel Truck Equipme Truck Parts 4360 111.25 Total for Chk 101589 111.25* 101590 D. C. A. Inc. Flex.Spending Acct.-Oct. 4160 49.30 Total for Chk 101590 49.30* 101591 Dexter Shoe Co. Golf Merchandise 4901 83.38 Total for Chk 101591 83.38* 101592 Diesel & Import Auto/T Truck Repair 4823 80.95 Total for Chk 101592 80.95* 101593 East Side Beverage Co. Beverages 4901 145.80 Total for Chk 101593 145.80* Date: 11/10/1999 Time: 15:20:12 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 4 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101594 Elegant Thymes Caterin Matson Wedding 3,137.10 Total for Chk 101594 3,137.10* 101595 Ericson, Jim Book-Running MS Word 4180 45.63 Total for Chk 101595 45.63* 101596 Focus News Legal Notice-Consult.Eng 4160 613.80 Total for Chk 101596 613.80* 101597 Franz Repro Print Mounting 4100 81.06 Total for Chk 101597 81.06* 101598 Golf Car Midwest Lease 4900 1.07 Total for Chk 101598 1.07* 101599 Government Finance Off Membership 4150 150.00 Total for Chk 101599 150.00* 101600 W. W. Grainger 400W Balast 4360 577.70 Total for Chk 101600 577.70* 101601 Kathy Harrer Reimbursement for suppli 4730 43.64 Total for Chk 101601 43.64* 101602 Jim Hatch Sales Compan Shovel Pushers, Scoop Sh 4417 549.09 Total for Chk 101602 549.09* 101603 Hawkins Chemical Chemicals 4825 1,736.86 Total for Chk 101603 1,736.86* 101604 C. W. Houle, Inc. Replaced 4 Catchbasins 4415 9,750.00 Total for Chk 101604 9,750.00* 101605 Independent Delivery S Brochure Delivery 4350 267.85 Total for Chk 101605 267.85* 101606 Innovative Images Mounds View Matters, Bud 4160 3,440.00 Total for Chk 101606 3,440.00* 101607 Insty Prints Printing-Comprehensive P 4180 126.63 Total for Chk 101607 126.63* 101608 Intl. Conference of Bu Membership Dues 4180 195.00 Total for Chk 101608 195.00* 101609 Johnson's Hitches & We Hitch Installed 4900 463.76 Total for Chk 101609 463.76* 101610 Richard Jopke Convention Expense Reimb 4180 505.02 Total for Chk 101610 505.02* Date: 11/10/1999 Time: 15:20:12 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 5 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101611 Kath Auto Parts & Mach Dimmer 4360 102.05 Total for Chk 101611 102.05* 101612 Kunde Company Oak Wilt Control 4380 750.00 Total for Chk 101612 750.00* 101613 Robert G. Lane Meter Refund-2637 Ridge 40.00 Total for Chk 101613 40.00* 101615 League of Minnesota Ci Workers' Comp. 4902 4,546.00 Total for Chk 101615 4,546.00* 101616 League of Minnesota Ci HR & LR Conference 4130 75.00 Total for Chk 101616 75.00* 101617 Lenfer Automatic Trans '97 Crown Vic.-Transmiss 4462 3,361.93 Total for Chk 101617 3,361.93* 101618 Lillie Suburban News Ad-Airport Advisory Comm 4110 6.83 Total for Chk 101618 6.83* 101619 M.A.U.M.A. Meeting-Pires 4130 16.00 Total for Chk 101619 16.00* 101620 M.T.I. Distributing Co Low PSI PC, Nipples 4360 195.48 Total for Chk 101620 195.48* 101621 MacQueen Equipment, In Repair of Vactor Pump 4823 4,160.32 Total for Chk 101621 4,160.32* 101622 Mail Boxes Etc. Package Mailing 4826 55.82 Total for Chk 101622 55.82* 101623 McCollister & Co. Oil, Fuel 4417 447.49 Total for Chk 101623 447.49* 101624 MCI Worldcom Phone Charges 4160 62.83 Total for Chk 101624 62.83* 101625 Menards Lumber, Utility Knife, B 4470 1,070.36 Total for Chk 101625 1,070.36* 101626 Metro Council Environm Wastewater Service 4823 56,317.92 Total for Chk 101626 56,317.92* 101627 Metro Legal Services, Delivery to B.Long 4100 24.00 Total for Chk 101627 24.00* 101628 Metrocall State Display Service 4417 59.97 Total for Chk 101628 59.97* Date: 11/10/1999 Time: 15:20:12 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 6 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101629 Patricia Michna Meter Refund-5287 Edgewo 40.00 Total for Chk 101629 40.00* 101630 Microtech North Monitor Repair 4160 175.65 Total for Chk 101630 175.65* 101631 Midwest Coca/Cola Beverages 4901 242.29 Total for Chk 101631 242.29* 101632 Miller Tree & Landscap Tree Removal 4380 5,481.20 Total for Chk 101632 5,481.20* 101633 Minnesota D.A.R.E. Off Membership Dues 4200 35.00 Total for Chk 101633 35.00* 101634 Minnesota Dept. of Hea Operators Certification 4826 23.00 Total for Chk 101634 23.00* 101635 Minnesota Golf Assn., Membership-S.Johnson 4901 15.00 Total for Chk 101635 15.00* 101636 Minnesota Golf Cars, I Club Cars Equipment 4900 39.81 Total for Chk 101636 39.81* 101637 Minnesota Wanner Compa Spray Tips, Valves 4900 109.46 Total for Chk 101637 109.46* 101638 University of Minnesot Juvenile Officers Instit 4200 190.00 Total for Chk 101638 190.00* 101639 Mooney & Associates Parts for Singer Valve 4823 145.02 Total for Chk 101639 145.02* 101640 Morton Salt Road Salt 4472 5,792.97 Total for Chk 101640 5,792.97* 101641 Mounds View, City of Well #2 Irrigation 4823 6,600.43 Total for Chk 101641 6,600.43* 101642 Mounds View, City of Bldg.Permit-Bridges Pump 4900 54.72 Total for Chk 101642 54.72* 101643 National Pen Corporati Pens 4160 100.45 Total for Chk 101643 100.45* 101644 Dan Netko Exteriors Permit Refund 89.55 Total for Chk 101644 89.55* 101645 New Brighton-Mounds Vi October Luncheon 4130 105.00 Total for Chk 101645 105.00* Date: 11/10/1999 Time: 15:20:12 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 7 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101646 Norseman Awards Plaque for Kitty Kickok 4100 65.80 Total for Chk 101646 65.80* 101647 North Country Ford Car Part 4462 13.09 Total for Chk 101647 13.09* 101648 North Star Turf, Inc. 4 Ply Ribbed Dico 4360 889.13 Total for Chk 101648 889.13* 101649 North Suburban Cable C Modem 4160 395.00 Total for Chk 101649 395.00* 101650 Northern Sanitary Supp Towels 4160 383.90 Total for Chk 101650 383.90* 101651 Northern States Power 7840 Pleasant View-Lakes 4350 9,252.58 Total for Chk 101651 9,252.58* 101652 Northern Tool & Equipm Paint Brush 4650 3.18 Total for Chk 101652 3.18* 101653 Northwest Family YMCA Gym Usage-Calvin Academy 4350 300.00 Total for Chk 101653 300.00* 101654 Nystrom Publishing Co. Printing-Newsletter 4160 3,231.80 Total for Chk 101654 3,231.80* 101655 Orkin Exterminating Co Exterminating 4160 88.29 Total for Chk 101655 88.29* 101656 Pace Analytical Well Testing 4825 126.00 Total for Chk 101656 126.00* 101657 Dvendra Patel Room Deposit Refund 100.00 Total for Chk 101657 100.00* 101658 Peterson Environmental Electronic Well Monitori 4900 7,235.81 Total for Chk 101658 7,235.81* 101659 Pipeline Supply, Inc. Solder, Flux, Couplings 4650 20.23 Total for Chk 101659 20.23* 101660 Pitney Bowes, Inc. EZ Seal, Tape Rolls 4160 164.11 Total for Chk 101660 164.11* 101661 Pomp's Tire Service, I Tire Repair 4900 38.00 Total for Chk 101661 38.00* 101662 Ramsey County Assurance, Filing Fees 4180 39.00 Total for Chk 101662 39.00* Date: 11/10/1999 Time: 15:20:12 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 8 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101663 RCLLG Holiday Banquet 4130 30.00 Total for Chk 101663 30.00* 101664 Glenn Rehbein Farms 4650 5,294.57 Total for Chk 101664 5,294.57* 101665 River Junction Tree Se Brush Removal 4360 550.00 Total for Chk 101665 550.00* 101666 Savin Corporation Copier 4160 99.00 Total for Chk 101666 99.00* 101667 Serice Construction, I 31.80 Total for Chk 101667 31.80* 101668 Short-Elliott & Hendri Professional Services 4470 375.82 Total for Chk 101668 375.82* 101669 Snyders Pencils, Markers 4350 12.32 Total for Chk 101669 12.32* 101670 Spring Lake Park Fire Fire Inspection Services 4210 5,841.30 Total for Chk 101670 5,841.30* 101671 Spring Lake Park Lumbe Cedar 2 x 4s 4650 30.67 Total for Chk 101671 30.67* 101672 Star Tribune EDC Ad 4160 514.80 Total for Chk 101672 514.80* 101673 Stringer Business Syst Maintenance Contract 4350 87.13 Total for Chk 101673 87.13* 101674 Suburban Exteriors Permit Refund 89.62 Total for Chk 101674 89.62* 101675 Sysco Food Services of Cookies, Candy, Cocoa 4901 164.74 Total for Chk 101675 164.74* 101676 Time Saver City Council Mtg.-10/25 4100 899.50 Total for Chk 101676 899.50* 101677 U. S. West 484-9155 4160 735.52 Total for Chk 101677 735.52* 101678 United Rentals, Inc. Paint 4415 90.61 Total for Chk 101678 90.61* 101679 Viking Electric Contact Block, Push Butt 4360 24.65 Total for Chk 101679 24.65* Date: 11/10/1999 Time: 15:20:12 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 9 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101680 Voss Lighting Lights for City Hall 4460 312.05 Total for Chk 101680 312.05* 101681 W.A.I. Continuum Inv.Nos.5239,5284,5354,5 4650 29,490.30 Total for Chk 101681 29,490.30* 101682 Wager's, Inc Maintenance Contract 4823 27.00 Total for Chk 101682 27.00* 101683 Walters Recycling & Re Sales Tax-Invoice #10243 4350 11.05 Total for Chk 101683 11.05* 101684 Western Bank Savings Bond-Gryniewski 4420 100.00 Total for Chk 101684 100.00* 101685 Charles Whiting Phone & Airline Reimburs 4130 226.05 Total for Chk 101685 226.05* 101686 Wold Architects & Engi Architectural & Engineer 4650 5,355.00 Total for Chk 101686 5,355.00* Grand Total 325,159.49* 7C RESOLUTION NO. 5383 Establishing a Street Reconstruction Fund and dedicating a portion of Electric and Natural Gas Franchise Fees to said Fund CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the City's existing streets are aging and will need to be reconstructed; WHEREAS, the City has determined that it wishes to reduce the percentage of the street reconstruction costs that are paid by property owners; WHEREAS, the City needs a funding source to pay for its share of street reconstruction projects; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to levy a franchise fee on Electric and Natural Gas sales in the City of Mounds View of up to 4%; and WHEREAS,the City has determined that it will levy the full 4%franchise fee in the year 2000 with at least 1 %2% of the 4% to be used towards future street reconstruction projects. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that a Street Reconstruction Fund be hereby established. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Street Reconstruction Fund can only be used to pay for the costs associated with street rehabilitation/overlay, street reconstruction, or street construction projects provided,however,that if the City Council determines that any monies in said fund should be used for some other purpose,it must conduct a public hearing by providing at least fourteen days public notice and publish a notice of said public hearing in the City's legal newspaper, and approve such other use of said funds by at least four votes of the City Council. For purposes of this resolution, street rehabilitation/overlay, street reconstruction, and street construction costs do not include costs associated with street lighting, storm water, wastewater or water system costs which will be funded by other sources. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the year 2000, at least 1 %2% of the 4% Electric and Natural Gas Franchise Fee will be deposited upon receipt, into the Street Reconstruction Fund. Whereas said resolution was declared to have been duly passed and adopted this 15th day of November, 1999. TTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator Item No. IL Staff Report No. Meeting Date: November 15, 1999 Type of Business: C.A. WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution No. 5384 Rejecting Sign Bids and Authorizing Rebid Date of Report: November 9, 1999 As discussed at the November 1, 1999 work session, Council agreed to reject the electronic sign bids due to incorrect interpretation of the of the bids. Staff has received letters from both bidders agreeing to this procedure. The resolution before you will reject the bids and authorize staff to readvertise for the sign. The bid opening will be on November 29, 1999, with a possible award on December 13, 1999. Staff has made minor corrections in the bid form which should eliminate any confusion in reviewing the bids. Mich.el Ulrich, Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Council approve Resolution No. 5384 Rejecting Sign Bids and Authorizing Rebid. C:\OFFICE\WP WIN\W PDOCS\SIGNBIDS.WPD 11/03/99 11:28 6129417139 AIM ELECTRONICS ••- CITY OF MV (11001 !jIhLECTFonicpinc. 8140 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie,Minnesota 5534.4 Phone(612)941.98330 Fax (612)941-7139 DATE: November 3, 1999 TO: Mike Ulrich, Public Works CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW FROM: Gerry Gordon, President RE: Electronic Message Board- Bid Proposal Dated October 13, 1999 This letter will acknowledge that all electronic message board bid proposals dated October 15, 1999,have been rejected due to irregularities in the bidding process. It is understood that the City of Mounds View will be accepting new bids in late November or early December, 1999. Please include AIM Electronics, Inc.in the mailing for the new bid proposal forms. GDG:Ih AUTOMATED INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE 11-11-1999 10:05AM FROM ATTRACTA SIGN 612 933 7730 P. 1 T T ACTA • kiN 7420 WEST. LAKE ST. • MINNEAPOLIS, MN. 55426 , (612) 933-7730 • FAX (612) 933 7963 11/I1/99 City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Dear Mice, It is our understanding that due to a misinterpretation,the bids for your new message center signage were rejected and will be rebid at a later date. We are looking forward to receiving the new bid package and submitting a new proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to bid on your signage. S. -ly, Greg Ren: .� RESOLUTION NO. 5384 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION REJECTING ELECTONIC SIGN BIDS AND GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO RE-LET THE CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View awarded a competitively bid electronic sign contract based upon staff interpretation of the apparent low bidder; and WHEREAS, the bids received from the vendors were unclear and inconclusive as to whether both of the bids submitted included the applicable state sales tax; and WHEREAS, the City is responsible for paying state sales tax, and as such, staff added sales tax to the bid that did not specifically state that it included sales tax; and WHEREAS, such staff interpretation caused confusion in the bid process; and WHEREAS, an inappropriate contract award was made based upon the staff assumption; and WHEREAS, both of the parties that submitted electronic sign bids have acknowledged that an inappropriate contract award was made and that the contract is to be re-let by the City (see attached Exhibit"A"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the Council has determined that an improper electronic sign contract award was made and that such award is hereby rescinded. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View rejects all of the original bids and authorizes staff to re-let the electronic sign contract. Adopted this 15th day of November, 1999. ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CITY ADMINISTRATOR SJR-171594v2 MU125-14 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW'S TEMPORARY UTILIZATION OF A CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPLOYEE THIS AGREEMENT, entered into by and between the CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, a Minnesota municipal corporation, is effective upon the execution of this Agreement by the named officers of both cities. RECITALS WHEREAS,Mounds View is in need of temporary computer and other technical support services and is without staff to provide the needed services; WHEREAS,Roseville has management information system and other technical employees that are able to provide the services required by Mounds View and; WHEREAS,Minnesota Statute 471.59 authorizes political subdivisions of the State to enter into Joint Powers Agreements for the joint exercise of powers common to each. NOW,THEREFORE,it is mutually stipulated and agreed to as follows: 1. SERVICES. A. The City of Roseville shall provide qualified management information systems employees ("Employees")to perform computer and related technical services required by the City of Mounds View. The City of Roseville shall be solely responsible for compensating the assigned Employee(s) engaged in providing computer and technical services under this Agreement, including any overtime wages incurred, as well as any insurance or employee benefits provided under the policies or agreements of the City of Roseville. B. The City of Mounds View will provide the necessary office, equipment, and supplies for the assigned Employee(s) to provide the services required hereunder and will bear 81872 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Cities of Roseville and Mounds View have caused this Agreement to be duly executed effective on the day and year last entered below. Dated: CITY OF ROSEVILLE • By: Daniel G. Wall Its Mayor By: Steven Sarkozy Its City Manager Dated: CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW By: Dan Coughlin Its Mayor By: Chuck Whiting Its City Man—ager— C Le—,L "4''4,rl•,rk ,/,•- 81872 3 F RESOLUTION NO. 5389 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING PREMISE PERMITS FOR THE LION'S CLUB TO PERMIT CHARITABLE GAMBLING AT THE MERMAID AND ROBERT'S OFF HIGHWAY 10 IN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WHEREAS, the Mounds View Lion's Club presently holds a charitable gambling premise permit approved by the City of Mounds View for two locations within the City; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Lion's Club is requesting renewal of its charitable gambling premise permits for these locations; and WHEREAS, State Law requires the Mounds View Lion's Club to obtain individual premise permits to allow charitable gambling at the following locations: Mermaid 2200 Highway 10 Robert's Off 10 2400 County Road H2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby approves the renewal of the charitable gambling premise permits for the locations listed in this resolution for the Mounds View Lion's Club. Adopted this 15th day of November, 1999 ATTEST: Mayor Dan Coughlin (SEAL) City/Clerk Administrator, Charles S. Whiting l0A November , 1999 The Honorable Jesse Ventura 130 State Capitol Building 75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155-1099 Dear Governor Ventura: On behalf of the Reliever Airport Coalition, we are writing to congratulate you and your administration's efforts on dealing with the issue of urban sprawl. The Reliever Airport Coalition is a coalition of metropolitan cities and townships that are committed to reforming airport policies for the entire metropolitan area. Coalition members include the Cities of Lexington, Circle Pines, Lake Elmo, Eden Prairie and Mounds View. We believe, like you, that growth will happen but that such growth should be managed in an orderly way to ensure that the entire Twin Cities area remains competitive with other regions of the country. In addition, we believe that a part of managing our urban sprawl involves the State's active involvement in managing the growth of our air transportation system and spending public funds raised by the airports wisely. As you may know, the Metropolitan Airports Commission ("MAC") owns and operates five "minor use" airports in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The minor use airports include Airlake, Anoka County/Blaine, Crystal, Flying Cloud, and Lake Elmo. The MAC also owns and operates an"intermediate use" airport at the Saint Paul Downtown Airport. Currently, all of the Reliever Airports (i.e., minor use and intermediate use) are under capacity. However, the MAC is currently proposing to expand the minor use airports at Lake Elmo, Flying Cloud and Anoka County/Blaine to accommodate bigger planes and more traffic. In essence, the MAC is attempting to expand these airports into de facto intermediate use status airports. This proposal is shocking in light of the fact that the MAC has acknowledged that the St. Paul Downtown Airport (an intermediate size airport) is substantially under utilized and desires more air traffic. At this time, we do not need more intermediate use airports outside of our urban core. Rather, we should work to fully utilize the capacity of our existing intermediate use airport in downtown St. Paul. Expanding the Lake Elmo Airport and the Anoka Blaine Airport into intermediate use airports while the St. Paul Downtown Airport has tremendous existing capacity, is not only a waste of public money but it will encourage "leap frog" urban sprawl at the rural fringe of the metropolitan area. Building a new runway at a minor use airport when there is capacity at the intermediate use airport is like adding a new lane on a highway when the existing lanes are only half full. The Honorable Jesse Ventura November , 1999 Page 2 of 3 The amount of public resources proposed to be spent on the expansion of the suburban minor use airports is astounding and can be better spent on enhancing St. Paul's Holman Field and on much needed noise mitigation funding for communities impacted by the expansion of the Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport. For example, the MAC proposes to spend $52 million to add 1,100 feet to the primary runway (this includes the land acquisition) at the Flying Cloud Airport. As a public policy matter, the issue of whether or not this expansion really needs to be made has gone unaddressed by the MAC and the Legislature and is something that your administration should scrutinize. In addition, in Eden Prairie alone, the taxpayers will be forced to forego over $8 million per year in lost property tax revenues due to the inability of the city to develop around the airport site consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. More importantly, however, is the issue of whether MAC's proposal to expand our smaller airports into bigger ones in the suburban areas encourages "dumb-growth" and a foolish waste of the State's airport resources. The MAC's plans to expand the smaller airports in the suburbs encourages disorderly development in light of the fact that St. Paul's airport is not fully utilized and communities around the MSP Airport are struggling with redevelopment issues to deal with increased airport noise. Indeed, the MAC should be utilizing its public funding sources to strengthen our urban core and not abandon it. By expanding the minor use airports to accommodate intermediate use traffic, MAC is essentially taking away airport related economic development from the urban core and causing it to occur in the suburbs more quickly than planned and desired by residents living around minor use airports. Growth will eventually occur and all of the minor use airports may need to be expanded someday; but right now, there is no such need. We urge you to develop a system of airport growth that is based upon the following principles: (1) Use of airport revenues for expansion of airports should only be used when absolutely necessary. Increased development, demand and capacity issues should dictate expansion of minor use airports — not the other way around. Minor use airports should not be expanded when there is existing capacity at the intermediate use airport. (2) The public funds raised by our airport system should be spent wisely and should be scrutinized by the Legislature and the Governor in the same way that other State and Metropolitan agencies budgets are scrutinized. (3) The legislature and the metropolitan agencies should strengthen and revitalize communities who must deal with increased air traffic from the expansion of the MSP International Airport. (4) The Legislature, an elected body, should have oversight over the MAC when it deals with issues involving the expansion of airports that will result in increased air traffic JJC-168371 MU210-33 The Honorable Jesse Ventura November , 1999 Page 3 of 3 such as changing an airport's status from minor use to intermediate use, which is a major decision that impacts citizens and their communities. (5) All proposals to expand any airport, whether minor use, intermediate use or the MSP, should have meaningful input from impacted communities. The MAC should not dictate development but should work with communities to achieve their goals. (6) Expansion of airports should be proposed where a community fully supports expansion and is ready for such expansion over a community that does not fully support expansion and is unprepared to deal with the issues associated with such expansion. Accordingly, we urge you to scrutinize the MAC's plans to expand the minor use airports into de facto intermediate use airports. We have enclosed for your review legislation that was introduced last year by Representative Barb Haake (R—Mounds View) and Senator Steve Novak (DFL —New Brighton). This bill will was supported by the Reliever Airport Coalition and has passed through two committees in the House and one in the Senate and is currently awaiting Senate and House action for the 2000 Legislative Session. We ask for your support of this legislation. In addition, we would request a meeting at your convenience with you and your staff to discuss these issues in more detail. Thank you. Sincerely, Dan Coughlin, Mounds View Mayor Dot Heifort, Lexington Mayor LeeAnn Osbun, Circle Pines Mayor Lee Hunt, Lake Elmo Mayor Jean Harris, Eden Prairie Mayor JJC-168371 MU210-33 Item No. io B Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 11/15/99 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Fee Increases for Year 2000 Date of Report: November 9, 1999 BACKGROUND At the November 1, 1999 work session staff discussed proposed year 2000 fee increases with the City Council for various permits issued by the Community Development Department. Fees have not been changed since 1998. Attached is a list of fees that are proposed to be changed effective January 1,2000. A number of the fees are proposed to be changed to reflect typical project values as suggested by the Uniform Building Code. Others are being adjusted to better cover City review costs. The City Council also discussed options for implementing additional plan check fees. Community Development Department staff indicated some concerns that this increase could result in a substantial increase in permit fees paid by homeowners and/or their contractors. It could discourage property owners from improving their property. There currently are no plan check fees charged for projects under$10,000. The plan check fee would be equal to 65%of the building permit amount. Alternative strategies considered would be to lower the threshold from $10,000 to $5,000 , implement the fee increase over a two or three year period instead of all at once and to charge plan check fees based on the type of project. The City Council directed staff to bring forward a proposal to charge a plan check fee based on the amount of plan check that is actually required. After further discussion with Connie Forsythe,the plan check fee alternative that makes the most sense to staff would be to charge the plan check fee only on projects that require a substantial amount of staff review. These would include commercial projects,projects over$10,000, garages, garage additions, house additions, decks, large sheds, and major remodeling where structural alterations are proposed. Roofing, siding,window replacement, driveways, fences, and similar projects don't require a plan review and therefore will not require a plan check fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution No. 5382 amending the City of Mounds View Schedule of Fees and Charges. Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:\DATA\USERS\Rickj\SHARE\111599 fee report.doe RESOLUTION NO. 5382 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW'S UNIFORM SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES, EXHIBIT A ATTACHED WHEREAS, all the fees and charges of the City of Mounds View are listed in a uniform schedule; and WHEREAS, revisions and updates are necessary to the Fee Schedule last adopted in 1998 to reflect City costs and the State of Minnesota UBC, 1999 Building Data; and WHEREAS, the proposed fees are consistent and comparable to the Uniform Building Code and other Metropolitan cities; and WHEREAS, the 1998 Fee Schedule will now be known as the 2000 Fee Schedule; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby approve the revisions to the Uniform Fee Schedule and Charges attached hereto and referred to as Exhibit A. All other fees not shown on Exhibit A shall remain the same. Adopted this 15th day of November, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor (SEAL) Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator Exhibit A Revisions to 1998 Fee Schedule City of Mounds View • z AZAtiikaii* < oar %. Accessory Building (Shed) (Per square foot to determine value) Cement Floor $7.50 $8.50 Wood Floor $5.00 $6.00 Addition* (Per square foot to determine value) First Floor* $60.54 $63.55 Second Floor* $42.80 $44.49 Air Conditioning (Per square foot to determine value) Residential $2.58 Delete from schedule Commercial $3.10 Delete from schedule Basement* (Per square foot to determine value) Unfinished* $12.04 $12.86 Semi-Finished* $16.21 $17.24 (Per square foot to determine value) Basic Floor Area* $60.54 $63.53 Deck (Per square foot to determine value) Residential $6.00 $7.20 Mobile Home $5.00 $6.00 Windows (Use Existing $15 for first window/door $20 for first window/door Rough Opening but Changing plus $2 for each additional plus $2.50 for each additional Window Frames) window/door(plus $.50 window/door(plus $.50 surcharge) surcharge) Additions when calculating valuations for new construction: Fireplace Brick Single Flue (flat value) $2,000 $2,400 Brick Double (flat value) $2,500 $3,000 Free Standing Wood (flat $1,000 $1,200 value) Heatilator gas $2,000 $2,400 Exhibit A Resolution No. 5382 Page 2 of 4 Garage (Per square foot to determine value) Attached* $18.49 $19.35 Detached* $15.00 $15.75 Car Port* $12.38 $13.16 Incinerators Delete from schedule Gas Piping(Residential) $15.00 per unit $20.00 per unit Porch (Per square foot to determine value) Screen Only $20.20 $21.22 Three Season (wood frame/ $40.36 $42.58 windows/doors-NO HEAT) Four Season* $60.54 $63.55 Reshingling Residential (Tear Off) Use Valuation Table $50 for first 1,000 square feet plus $3 for each additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof. ($.50 Surcharge) Residential (Overlay) Use Valuation Table $40 for first 1,000 square feet plus $2 for each additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof ($.50 Surcharge) Commercial Use Valuation Table Use Valuation Table. Residing/Stucco Residential Use Valuation Table $50 for first 1,000 square feet plus $3 for each additional 100 square feet. ($.50 Surcharge) Soffit/Fascia, add: --- $.30 per lineal foot. (Minimum permit fee $23.50, $.50 Surcharge) Commercial Use Valuation Table Use Valuation Table. Exhibit A Resolution No. 5382 Page 3 of 4 Driveway/Sidewalk/Patio/ Parking Lot Residential Use Valuation Table Concrete/Asphalt/Brick: $40 for first 1,000 square feet plus $2 for each additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof. (No Surcharge) Gravel: $20 for first 1,000 square feet plus $1 for each additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof. (No Surcharge) Commercial Use Valuation Table Use Valuation Table (No Surcharge) Telecommunications Antenna $750 (plus .50 surcharge) 7 percent of yearly rent to city(plus .50 surcharge) Planning Commission Mailed $10 per year $20 per year Agendas Planning Commission Mailed $20 per year $40 per year Minutes Storm Water Management PUD Not Specified $1,996 per acre Sewer Availability Charge $1,050 per unit $1,100 per unit (determined (SAC) by MCES) Sewer Connection/Repair $25 plus $.50 surcharge $25 (No Surcharge is Permit Required) Plan Check Fee 65 percent of permit fee 65 percent of permit fee for valuations over for valuations over $10,000 $10,000; 65 percent for and 65 percent of permit fee all commercial permits for valuations under $10,000 for garages, garage additions, house additions, deck, sheds over 216 square feet, major remodeling, and all commercial permits. Exhibit A Resolution No. 5382 Page 4 of 4 *Fees as Revised by the State of Minnesota UBC, 1999 Building Data. All other building-related permit fees/charges contained in Exhibit A were reviewed by the Building Official and were adjusted to better reflect actual cost of construction. Item No. /D & Staff Report No. Meeting Date: November 15, 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: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 636, and Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 906, Section 906.01, Subdivision 2b Related to Required Testing of Private Ground Water Systems Date of Report: November 10, 1999 Background: As was stated in report to the Council on October 25, 1999, the Mounds View City Code requires that all buildings designed for human habitation be connected to the municipal water system. There are, however, six properties in the City which do not have access to a Municipal water main and, therefore, are exempt from this requirement. These properties are required to submit certified well test results twice a year; once in April and once in October to verify water quality. There is a cost of approximately $25 to the property owner to conduct this test. After receiving these well test results for ten years with only one negative result, staff is requesting that the City Code be amended to require that well testing be required only once a year rather than twice, preferably in June of each year. Retesting and treatment is required if negative results are received. On October 25, 1999, the Council approved the first reading for this ordinance. Recommendation: Approve the second reading and adopt proposed Ordinance 636, an ordinance which amends said chapter of the Mounds View Municipal Code. <i cum), .L. 6,►\, James Ericson, Planning Associate C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\REPORTS\ORD636.REP ORDINANCE NO. 636 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 900, CHAPTER 906, MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 906.01, SUBD.2(B) TESTING REQUIRED; WATER QUALITY THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 906.01,Sub. 2(b), of this Mounds View Municipal Code relating to water quality and testing is amended with the proposed additions and the proposed deletions,to Section 906.01,Subd. 2(b),Testing Required; Water Quality,to read as follows: Subd. 2 Exceptions; Regulatory Provisions: a. Exceptions: Any existing building which is required to connect to the Municipal water system under Subdivision 1 hereof but which does not have access to a Municipal water main adjacent to the property on which such building is built shall not be required to connect to the Municipal water system until such time as a Municipal water main is constructed adjacent to such property. b. Testing Required; Water Quality: The owner of any property exempted under Subdivision 2a above shall be required to submit copies of certified test results to the City showing the well serving the property to have coliform organisms (mpn) of less than one and one-tenth(1.1)per one hundred (100)ml and to have less than one one-hundredth(0.01)mg/liter of nitrate nitrogen. Testing shall be required-twiee once each year, . . .. . . . .. = . . . during the month of June. c. Treatment Equipment: Any well which cannot meet the requirements listed in Subdivision 2b above shall be required to have equipment attached which is capable of reducing the contaminants listed to acceptable levels for all faucets used for human consumption. This equipment may be a central unit or separate units located at each faucet used for consumption. Copies of equipment specifications and certified test of the units shall be submitted to the City for approval(Ord. 503, 4-27-92) SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 25th day of October, 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 15th day of November, 1999. ATTEST: Dan Coughlin, Mayor (SEAL) Charles S.Whiting, Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Item No. ID 40 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: November 15, 1999 Type of Business: CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 5385, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for a Two-Story, 46-Room Senior Assisted Living Facility at 2670 County Road I Date of Report: November 9, 1999 Background: The applicant, MSP Real Estate, has requested approval of a development review for a two-story senior assisted living complex to be located at 2670 County Road I. The applicant has an agreement to purchase this site from the property owner, M&E Realty. The Council approved the conditional use permit for this development (Resolution No. 5345 attached for reference) and the ordinance which rezoned the property from B-2, Limited Business Commercial, to R-4, High Density Residential (Ordinance 631, also attached for your reference.) One of the requirements of the approved CUP is that the applicant get approval of a Development Review. The building will have a maintenance free exterior will brick accents on the first floor. The applicant has submitted an architectural rendering of the proposed building, which will be on display for your meeting. In addition to the existing sidewalk along County Road I, the applicant will install a sidewalk along Mounds View Drive to connect to the existing sidewalk, and then have an internal sidewalk on the site to allow the residents and their guests to walk uninterrupted around the building. Analysis: Dimensional Requirements: Building Setbacks: Required Proposed: Met ? Front (Co. Rd. I) 30 feet 30 feet Yes Front (Mounds View Dr.): 30 feet 30 feet Yes Side (SuperAmerica): 40 feet 85 feet Yes Minimum lot width: 100 feet 190 feet Yes Minimum lot area: 1.0 acre. 1.62 acres Yes Building height: 45 feet 37 feet Yes Parking requirements: 31 spaces 31 spaces Yes MSP Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility Planning Case 559-99 November 15, 1999 Page 2 All of the dimensional and other zoning requirements (setbacks, building height, parking spaces, etc.) are either met or exceeded with this proposal. Drainage: The applicant has submitted a drainage plan to which indicates runoff will either be absorbed into the greenspace or directed across the parking lot and onto either Mounds View Drive or County Road I. There are two storm sewer catch basins near the intersection of Mounds View Drive and County Road Ito which any runoff will flow. This drainage plan has been reviewed and approved by Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works. Because the site is under two acres, Rice Creek Watershed District approval will not be necessary. Landscape Plan: In Section 1103.08 of the City Code pertaining to fencing, screening and landscaping, it states that the lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, sidewalks, driveway, building and other requirements shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or materials generally used in landscaping. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which has been forwarded to the City Forester for comment. After review, Forester Wriskey suggested that changes be made with regard to a few of the listed species, which has since been done. The landscape plan included with your packet is the version approved by Mr. Wriskey. Parking and Access: There are 31 parking stalls shown on the site plan, the amount required in the approved conditional use permit. Two of the stalls are handicap-accessible, which satisfies ADA requirements. There are two accesses to this site, one on County Road I and the other from Mounds View Drive. The Planning Commission discussed at great length these two access points, and after significant discussion, recommended that the access to and from County Road I be marked as right-in, right- out only, to prohibit any attempted dangerous cross-over access from the west-bound lane of County Road I. No restrictions were placed on the Mounds View Drive access. Utilities and Easements Utilities are available to this site and no easements will need to be dedicated for this project. There is an existing utility easement along Mounds View Drive in which the telephone and gas lines are buried. A storm sewer is located on the site in the County Road I right of way. There is one fire hydrant located on the site, and one hydrant across the street from the lot on Mounds View Drive. The Fire Marshal has indicated that because the building will be sprinklered, the two existing hydrants would be sufficient for purposes of fire protection. Signage: The applicant indicates that the specifications for the site signage have not yet been completed thus there is nothing to present to the Council in this regard. The Planning Commission in their resolution recommending approval required only that any proposed signage be in compliance with the City Code and the approved CUP, which allowed for 32 square feet of signage, not including any incidental signs, such as directional signage. MSP Assisted Living Senior Residential Facility Planning Case 559-99 November 15, 1999 Page 3 Lighting: The parking lot will be illuminated by four light standards, each 21 feet tall with hooded 350-watt bulbs directed toward the lot. The entrance canopy will have six recessed 70-watt reflector bulbs and the side entrance will have two bollard-type lights along the sidewalk. (The applicant has provided lighting specs for the fixtures proposed, included with this report.) No other lighting is proposed. The Lighting plan and photometric analysis date-stamped 10/8/99 (not included) showed that the footcandle readings are all within the required limits. Staff will have on hand a copy of the lighting plan and photometric analysis at your meeting. General Site Plan Issues The site plan shows the proposed location for the dumpster area--noted only as"trash". Included with this report, separate from the site plans, is a more detailed illustration which shows the construction details of the enclosure. Recommendation: Given the fact that this project meets all dimensional criteria and requirements and that there are no outstanding or unresolved issues, and considering the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, staff is recommending that the Council approve this development review request for MSP Real Estate. Council Resolution No. 5385 is attached for your action if so desired. James Ericson Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site and Floor Plans,Elevations,date-stamped 11/2/99(Separate Attachment) 5. Landscape Plan,date-stamped 10/20/99 6. Trash Enclosure Detail,date-stamped 10/20/99 7. Light Fixture Details,date-stamped 10/8/99 8. Planning Commission Resolution 596-99(Development Review) 9. City Council Resolution No. 5345 (Conditional Use Permit) 10. Ordinance 631 (Rezoning) 11. City Council Resolution No. 5385 NADATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\DEV-REV.CC 1 careCf DOM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION fi2401 Highway 10, Mounds 'View MN 55112 pr'+tt-Parente:1r 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information kl""?D Name of Applicant I\t i, 4ritor Telephone (o!Z AddressL{O l l bR m 3 urn Ee r cQ t.ri q t,0 Fax 61Z 3 iN,ic'4P6_211146 tO • Interest in Property(check appropriate box) a Owner of Property a Contract for Deed Owner • C Lessee.Operator,Manager o Other(explain) Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest In property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location z.670 C0 N ,Aa> I Legal Description A iz eoi J Property Identification it(PIN#) 0 73o - Z 3 t ( -- Lf C� #of Acres 2. • Current Zoning L t• T o ir.:=Si aa. Rt e��� Vekcd.,'r LANci) Type ofApplication Z� ..� 2— l 1 c < ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ID Minor Subdivision $200 Q Planned Unit Development(POD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 a Conditional Use Permit R-1. R-2$75;all other:$250 ❑ Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appy $100 Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 t7 Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-I,R-2$25:all others$100 a Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other . *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. •tj'ofMounds View,MN Develo ment A. •Iieation Page 2 Present Use of Property f Undeveloped/Vacant D Single Family Dwelling a Duplex Two Family Dwelling a Multi-family Dwelling C Business/Conunercial Establishment v Industrial Establishment o Other(explain) Property Classification to Abstract r Torrens Description of Proposal __Co,v 5 rst si T•i ctJ 4Z� �moi. i V bZ X13 ;N ce 1 R L�1 —a f 5'e r 12 „i tkePe LeifA--L 1 BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HERE' DECLARE THAT,TO THE f3LiST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.TIM INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TR 0:e ACCURATE, Signature of Applicant l Name of Applicant(typed/printed) i Signature ofPropc rty Owner Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) '� 4, 1= I • Address of Owner 3 ilit(A 6oCAPCiis i M `j J�1o4 to`7 Phone Number of Owner (( z) "3 v _ et 21 ********************************************* *****ss********:** ***************************ss FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal .1O-a 1- Date of Acceptance APlanning Case No. 60 Limit e:d to: 60-day 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check# Application: e,�p-O7� -)i O .� 1� - Receipt# 37 ids Park Dedication: - Deposits: Other: — - Total: NADATAIGROUPS1COMDEV1FORMSOEYAPP.FOR 1/98 74r1 .01 IN i N 4:3 7876 Z 7885 7866 7867 7870 7869 7858 '- co B�2 7870 N 7877MIZE 7851 7860 7865 7852 W 7853 B `� >� 7863 7850 7855 7846 7841 7841 RO• 7830 7840 ' 7835 7840 7829 • R-4 #400, =—3p��. 7820 3 7815 7790 7815 7800 7817 7750 ti^ - •i NF 7805 77E 75°7809 1 7800 , 2 7809 7770 3 7801 77 7797 ^o . 8-2 t• 6 R-4: 7801 7751 7787 7777 q. gp 7767 7760 Cc cc 7741 7740 7767 p 41, 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753 7801 —2 B-2 7755 7730 7721 7720 __ 773' it 2. 7745 7710 7711 771` 7715 40 o 00 a0 in 770 --ft 770 E • ;. N N un In14. 7692 i 1 NPtatin \ ).- to X690 PUD .�n- `-1 r n N m cro can co in Lc)co 2553 C B 3: co rh co 2551 C 768E n' <c In 768 r Y N 2549 Q 2547;-9 768 g 2545 r B-4 2541 B-3 ti6P :> H,� 2537 le SILVER VIEW s•-• (.„4, rN. h N }e. r B-2 �v� `�`' PARK N ON o �� `�'x. N ..' N to l�1 —2 to - ..1;L to > B CO T N N rn 4►552 'J 40 In r r `� `Lc o tp OD +'550 (7) "•' r..,.'r, coro _ '542 PF • N N N N N6O co OOH ' -CO r0'N CO".N d. 540 • O #r O N h r%N N O r0 - '532 • :. OD O..N+.N N N!4 N p*'N 4.//Y., CC' O -p � r O CO ip '-.'I':.. '530` N p t0 r `+N N N '522 N r4'I11r4 16 "11::11 tO O 2 49 N I coLi 1121• .......??:.::::,:.:.:b......,....:::::::.?......3::,,:::::„:„,.. 44- ��p� '2 N NM+N co N "'N N N rn0N 0 co '..'N ro. ..,........:.::::::.......:.:.:........:.:..........:.....:......:....:::.......:..::::......... ...„,..„......,........... \mist ..... ...........,..,.............. 7444 ......... -• iets .e.iir...!•:-:.*::•'•"._... IL w 0111 u7 EliN 7 N 401 7 tm1 . -.......„„:„.:.:::::::::........:„.... ...„...........,.„ 44 T"'N; 7440 VIEW *DR 0 PF IX 1408 7390 ^ n ' '4110 730N ^ 7329 .. _ 7390 N N N�i tcr,O toco Ein H.DG_ _ to m ,o N m r: �' �� r. N N N J : 7350 URT •• r � N 735• N s- co m CO Zoning Map Planning Case 559-99 Applicant: MSP Real Estate N 1 )1 Location: 2670 CountyRoad dI • • City of Mounds View Location Map .. ....._ , N./ ip-NI -mwn mom vim_ . 111111111111.1111.1111.11111 IIIIIIja_ HI iS • . Mill UM , • Alli MIMI 1 I Ill MIMI • - - „ '''0,-Pr•P'2,,,',7:. ,,-••• •,,,a:<,111 — Ii,-;,,, ,,,,,.. •,<•1••w ,:ww.>: •AR.,•,%,:•,,- _111i '"1".;•P',• -m ::,;,4,=,•.4 „,,:•:,,,,,I...- ...... sm —--- P.M,42*,,, - ,App , ;•-..;-:'4,41.,';;•1,.=.1.. --'"' - ,,,,.....,'<•,;. ' ,-,,N<:-.'.•;',1•,::Ii..'''..:. <,„ ,,,,,...W••51k4::, ,•. ..,,... •..,.<..:„„,, z;'<,:-...1 -,,..•.,•,..,,4-.,v1,:„ _ 2670 County Road I >, -'7"u'rrg `0•<:', «i•••0::, - - --1—• C'ML:-;;P:1254.4•;:`,6, '.'0%'.4 r.f.''.; ,•;,`•`.1•I'T''.1., . 1 ••,;'t:g."0:)-Ysk•T%h;"«'.,:iN<W5q,.. ,<,A,,,,,m``,•,:t a'..`:',•.:;!,•':'-r. -•, f',.i.N~ . •o...s.lq VIA ,-.W.,..V,;4';',.<,..<,,,,.. ..,„;; ,q.„.5,::„.,,,,,,. 1411- ;;iiia$l'„1,..'..M.:;.1%...:t.;',.4.:,i;;:,f,L.•:•?' ...4,,m,J.41 ..4,A,. ••rit% , °•!-1.,...-A, ....44liz,:l Alf... .., ••••1;,: :i'•;••••414:i-nt,:•,•. :',ofs...•:,,,t.0 ...4•030:r3P ,,u,,,',v- -, . ,..... .„.. ...„,,, ,,,,...1.p..:0,,,,,,s,„„ . „.., ..„......„,..„..... „,„„...,,,,,,,,, ,.,.i.„:.,,,, '<><,•<<:;';4''<v.,«.,-.* . <" >4: ,.«,•<..<4.s..4s;444,,<4 "L., „....,,.....„....„,..5',WS. . -....- I I 1 1 I 1 ...... i Fr..114111(011674910411 • 1 ILLOgiiirilk4,00041404001%,,..• 5 ,0,pW . ...LI h moo . 114,41-3rAwil,,,y7416.406441,:p5g$,EN ;,,:.... 1 •-„,,,,,,pmesatogagonvonta auggim , A. ...6*-4/,*0 • _ 1 _, 5•5:,..44%1 A -----••*---- TIF . a. , ...._,__........ .-.....1–.-....... MI i ._----.------1-----.-- . — =lig . .... 111, 11.2- -- 7071ccevicilTrair • _..1 ....1.7. ... 77,14,2. ts EtilE.E. —E.: _ma aa.z-I: El 1 II a2=== -- ..Fit --=1 II ,11..."MIMI - ,_....”...--,--."-T....g • 11111: ';1111Z-"ga.E.-_-.1.-„pal i.r.:=ffEEM immilin: MSP Real Estate 2670 County Road I .14Conditional Use Permit and Rezoning .g4 4 NEI i 117 MIIIIIL Planning Case No. 559-99 and 560-94) 1.: --Ey`I=a't!lit! Ing 11111:Mmili .1 - I iLb. 4-...:IN ill ;;;;1,..,,,,,i,'.....: NI _p,II th.s.a,=... '-- irg hr _. ...5. Egg 6Tran*,..minimum, h. -. - r-- 4WA,;"z• OM MU OP • Zmit ii:g. 2670 County Road I • v.= 'i7-14- 1; '1/4ti;, *4, 1 IEM1.2 W 11.12-1016\ ,_—r.. i>.:. ',,?,10r <1% 41111.111 —.• 2.-.311:2 N. '.'0VirV4 :11=-* ,'''*..41:trgA14 IN4IF'..1.iliiiiiiiiiiii :':'.•.'N .*.As.,UkAi 2214 iiI5 rgilri::46141ZrAta F RE]raiiiiiiiiiiii —....=•"1=m1 EilizOi e:.afi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii HIM idlli:::iZi . „ illir illE i„,•-_-_Lislunri 4. • ...,:Hu: MOMMLIM . III) PL,Irti'lliihMMIMMINgiiiMilliiikir.Vj• '''' Ira . . , .... 1 III a . Fir 70 • .-; s S f c— p C, ;t CZ) Ii • i N C 0 CS ji W 4)c . .. _ 1 — _ , co - L.L. e • A W xa N N Wfa QW N 0 I- WWN a W J a' Mup W S N ar I QHq W H AW L7 . • O aZy <O ,�' W IX<<o 2 A-.9 .0-.9 U ED , *-%-f ad .o . 11 Da P4 E .be „.1.6, -FTR 71.6 Vl O .• F .i Vl� •' J W N W.. aJ 3 x mmiTraa. a o v d 3 a 4mmaimmil - - p W3 .• 44 I W W OACX r Li d iminommom a) —' ... W ..o a. ammummi a) ..—.—. 73 2=3:\A/18=8 - amminimmI imiNimmemil V) . — �- %-.L •0-,9 .0-,L 2"ADJUSTABLE FITTER CF3-16 16" (406 mm) CUTOFF FLOODLIGHT SERIES -Housing. Reflector. \��\` `\ Seamless, Prelector. \\ \ \ de cast aluminum. semi-specular \� r- \, `� Trish color,bronze. diffuse aluminum. \ � �� Ballast „.--''.---- -\-----...... \\\ Capaeitor F�r�ignitor O,g,lapss1° „Allk`,6s1 ir AL • Ail lee. !\\ 5.5'(140 mm) T Va 11 3,5(89 mm) Bal6at /%/f ::.,.a Cam em Lena Frame. Cover Die cast aluminum Adjustable Fitter. Set Screws door frame secures Die east akminum knuckle Patented lens;sealed with is sized for Y pipe(2-3/8'[60 mm)0.D.). Hinge silicone gasket Finish color,brans. Assembly Finish color,blade. SPEC# WATTAGE CATALOG# (a)VOLTAGE SUFFIX KEY (b)OPTIONS(factory installed) UNI-FORM°PULSE START METAL HALIDE M 120/208/240/277V(Standard) -(a)F Fusing 150W PSMH CF3615-(a)(b) T 120/277/347V(Canada Only)(Standard) -(a)H 2-Level Lighting C (120,277,347V) 200W PSMH CF3620-(a)(b) 1 120V -5P External Photocell(for 480V) 250W PSMH CF3625-(a)(b) 2 277V Q Quartz Standby 320W PSMH CF3632-(a)(b) 27 277V(PSMH Only) (includes 100W quartz lamp) 350W PSMH CF3635-(a)(b) 3 208V (N/A on 277V Reactor ballast) 400W PSMH CF3640-(a)(b) 4 240V U Upright Lens Frame 450W PSMH* CF3645-(a)(b) 5 480V Specify(a)Single Voltage—See Voltage Suffix Key. METAL HALIDE 6 347V(Canada Only) 175W MH CF3417-(a)(b) For voltage availability outside the U.S.and Canada,see Bulletin 250W MH CF3425-(a)(b) TD-9 or contact your Ruud Lighting authorized Intl Distributor. _...............__......_.._ iti i 400W MH CF3440-(a)(b) i l ,;1 HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM ;I "t 250W HPS CF3525-(a)(b) a i I- .i'i 400W HPS CF3540-(a)(b)0 !i Specify(a)Voltage&(b)Options. 'Consult factory for availability. J t e 2-Level Lighting available.See Technical Data Sheet TD-8. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ELECTRICAL FINISH Sharp cutoff luminaire for HID lamp,totally Fixture includes clear,medium base lamp. Exclusive DeltaGuard5 finish features an E-Coat enclosed.Housing is seamless,die cast Pulse-rated porcelain enclosed,4kv rated screw epoxy primer with medium bronze acrylic aluminum.Aluminum die cast adjustable shell type lampholder with spring loaded center powder topcoat,providing excellent resistance fitter mounting is sized for 2'pipe(2-3/8' contact.Lamp ignitor included where required. to corrosion,ultraviolet degradation and [60 mm]0.0.).Allows for directional aiming as All ballast assemblies are high power factor and abrasion.The finish is covered by our 7 year well as 2-1/2°incremental vertical adjustment. use the following circuit type: limited warranty. Contains integral wiring compartment.Two Reactor(277V PSMH) stainless steel set screws provide clamping (150—450W PSMH) ACCESSORIES to vertical tenons.Lens assembly consists of FWG-16 Wire Guard rigid aluminum frame and high impact,clear CWA—Constant Wattage Autotransformer PolVand tempered glass. (150—450W PSMH;175W—400W MH; LS 16 (not for uusenwith fixtureate s nhield upl ght position) 250—400W HPS) PC-1 Button Photocell LABELS (for fixtures set to 120V) on ANSI lamp wattage label supplied,visible during PATENTS PC*6 ((fforfixtures0set tol347V) relamping. UL Listed in U.S.and Canada for wet U.S.4,689,729;5,451,843;4,709,312 PC-2 Button Photocell locations and enclosure classified I P65 per (for fixtures set to 208,240,277V) IEC 529 and IEC 598. PGM-1 Ground Mount Post SBL-16 Backlight Shield y 9201 Washington Avenue Racine,Wisconsin 53406-3772 U.S.A. PHONE(414)886-1900 FAX(414)884-3309 RU UD ©Ruud Lighting,Inc. Printed in U.S.A. http://www.ru udl ighting.ca m 7/15/99 LIGHTING n CLEAR LENS—FLAT TOP HC . ROUND BOLLARD SERIES {-08.887"(225 mm)-j�InternalBronze Toly Ppainted Specular } I' ` `d s i Upper — Clear Reflector 5.5"(140 mm) 1 Acrylic Lens Die Cast — Main Collector ��A,�,�A�� Aluminum Lens Reflector Retaining Ring. With double \ silicone gasket r Finish color,bronze. (Inducted) ��� \ Lampholder 36"(914 mm) % 'yry �,-; Ignitor �Le--rr—� —Ballast ✓ht rr t# (Where required) kg U ` y Capacitor �fJ Epoxy Coated Steel Frame Housing. Extruded aluminum. — Base Plate. Finish color;bronze. Die cast . aluminum. Conduit Entry I '�I' —Galvanized Steel I�_w�—� Anchor 6"(1 J � � 3/8"-16 x 6"(152 mm) +1.25"(32 mm). SPEC# WATTAGE CATALOG It (a)VOLTAGE SUFFIX KEY (b)OPTIONS(factory installed) 13W Fluor. HC213-(a)(b) 0 120/277V A 180"Shielded Clear Lens 50W MH HC405-(a)(b) (Standard:50-100WMH;50-100WHPS) -(a)F Fusing 70W MH HC407-(a)(b) M 120/208/240/277V J Tamperproof Lens Fasteners 100W MH HC410-(a)(b) (Standard:50—100W MH;70—100W HPS) -(a)P Photocell 35W HPS HC503-(a)(b) T 120/277/347V(Canada Only) V Polycarbonate Lens (Standard:70—100W MH) 50W HPS HC505-(a)(b) Specify(a)tin– t V,pj(oge—See Volta eq,suffix Key. 1 120V(Standard:13W FL,35W HPS) I – 70W HPS HC507-(a)(b) 2 277V Ir;i'= {{c: 11 1,jt; "c'i-13 100W HPS HC510-(a)(b) 3 208V ' Ii 1(-L' �, .1 I tiff I ri i f� I li ; Specify(a)Voltage 8(b)Options. i• ' $i; ;) 4 240V )il; i Iii) 6 347V(Canada Only) (' r• , OCT 0 8 1999 ; 'ij For voltage availability outside the U.S.and Canada,see Bulletin 41_1u U i TD-9 or contact your Ruud Lighting authorized Int'I Distributor. s cf.__._. ._ GENERAL DESCRIPTION ELECTRICAL Extruded aluminum housing supplied internally Fluorescent fixture includes a quad tube Exclusive DeltaGuarde finish features an E-Coat with a formed and channeled 16 gauge steel frame compact fluorescent lamp.HID fixtures include epoxy primer with medium bronze acrylic supports the electrical components and main a clear,medium base lamp and porcelain powder topcoat,providing excellent resistance reflector.Housing fastens to a die cast aluminum enclosed,4kv rated screw shell type lampholder to corrosion,ultraviolet degradation and base with four 1/4"-20 phillips flat head screws. with spring loaded center contact.Lamp ignitor abrasion.The finish is covered by our 7 year Base is secured to concrete footing using included where required.All ballast assemblies limited warranty. provided masonite template and three 3/8'-16 x 6' are high power factor and use the following (152 mm)galvanized steel anchor bolts with circuit types: PATENT leveling nuts and washers.Suggested poured base:2'(610 mm)deep x 12"(305 mm)dia., Preheat U.S.5,105,347 depending on soil types and frost line in your (13W Fluorescent) area.A 3"(76 mm)dia.conduit opening is Reactor(120V only) LABELS provided in the base for ease of wiring.Injection (35W HPS) molded clear acrylic lens with specular collecting ANSI lamp wattage label supplied,visible during reflector attaches to the top of the housing with HX—High Reactance relamping.UL Listed in the U.S.and Canada for an over-lapping die cast aluminum retaining ring, (50—100W MH;50—100W HPS) wet locations and enclosure classified IP65 per held by two stainless steel alien flat head IEC 529 and IEC 598. fasteners.Two silicone lens seals prevent ACCESSORIES moisture from entering the lens,while a double HCL Louver lip silicone seal at the top of the reflector and TPS-1 Tamperproof Screwdriver sealed lampholder prevent insects,dirt and moisture from entering the optical chamber. .D M 9201 Washington Avenue Racine,Wisconsin 53406-3772 U.S.A. PHONE(414)886-1900 FAX(414)884-3309 ©Ruud Lighting,Inc. Printed in U.S.A. httpJ/www.ruudlighting.com 7/15/99 LIGHTING NiAM...du mM•kAnxinq"r.wir MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 596-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY, 46-ROOM SENIOR ASSISTED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. 573-99 WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate has requested City approval of a development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, property legally described as follows: Tract 'A", Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development and all residential development if more than two dwelling units are being erected within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site and Parking Plans,date-stamped 10/8/99 4. Elevations and Floor Plans,date-stamped 10/8/99 5. Lighting Plans and Specifications,date-stamped 10/8/99 6. Landscape Plan,date-stamped 10/8/99 7. Staff report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plan date-stamped October 8, 1999 and revised on October 20, 1999, conforms to the general zoning requirements of Title 1100 with regard to setbacks, parking requirements, and building height; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the Mounds View Fire Marshal has reviewed the placement of fire hydrants to service the building and finds their location and numbers to be acceptable; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the Director of Public Works has reviewed the drainage plan and has found it to be in conformance with the City's Local Water Management Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges that the City Forester has reviewed the Landscape Plan, recommending slight modification and clarification of the planting species used, and has found it acceptable with the indicated revisions. Resolution 596-99 MSP Development Review November 3, 1999 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Site plan shall be revised prior to action by the City Council as follows: a. A sidewalk shall be shown along Mounds View Drive. b. The access onto County Road I shall be marked as being"exit only." c. The building shall be situated so as to comply with all setback requirements. d. Signage shall be in compliance with the City Code and approved CUP. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 3rd day of November, 1999 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\596-99PC.RES 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. AnDan Cou hlin, M yor ATTEST: J. Charles S. Whiting, ity Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\5345CC.RES ORDINANCE NO. 631 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF 2670 COUNTY ROAD I FROM B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL, TO R-4, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PLANNING CASE NO. 559-99 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Recitals Section 1.01: MSP Real Estate has applied for a rezoning of the property located at 2670 County Road I, currently zoned B-2, to be rezoned as R-4, High Density Residential, said property legally described as follows: Tract "A", Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota Section 1.02: The use proposed by MSP Real Estate is an assisted living senior residential facility; and, Section 1.03: The Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Staff Report f. Staff Parking Analysis Memo,dated 8/3/99 g. Letter from M&E Realty,Property Owner,dated 5/24/99 h. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map i. Planning Commission Resolution 584-99 Section 1.04: The Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 584-99; and, Section 1.05: The Mounds View City Council does hereby find that this proposal meets the general requirements and standards for Rezonings as follows: Ownership: The application for approval of this rezoning has been filed by MSP Real Estate, who holds a purchase agreement for the property, and has been executed by the owner of the property, M&E Realty Company. Comprehensive Plan Consistency: The comprehensive plan designation for this property is Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. The proposal is consistent with this designation. Geographic Area Involved: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Mounds View Drive and County Road I. Nearby uses include a SuperAmerica and the Silver View Plaza to the west, a high density residential development and Silver View Park to the south, and a Burger King, Bicycle shop and a senior high rise to the north. Impact to Adjoining Properties: It is believed that the impact of this proposed development would be minimal. The use would act as a transition between the present commercial and residential uses. SECTION 2: The Mounds View City Council hereby amends Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled"Specific Rezonings" and amends the Official Zoning Map for the City of Mounds View to change the zoning designation on the property described above from B-2 to R-4. SECTION 3. The Mounds View City Council does hereby stipulate that in the event the development being proposed by MSP Real Estate does not come to fruition within one year of this ordinance's adoption (or sooner, upon written notification of the applicant), the Council may act to reinstate the property's original B-2 zoning classification. SECTION 4: This Ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. First Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 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, ayo,) ATTEST: Ce0C4 Charles Whiting, ity Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: -1-14)...t C. City Attorney N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\559-99\631.ORD RESOLUTION NO. 5385 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY, 46-ROOM SENIOR ASSISTED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY LOCATED AT 2670 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. 573-99 WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate has requested City approval of a development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, property legally described as follows: Tract `A'; Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development and all residential development if more than two dwelling units are being erected within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site and Floor Plans,date-stamped 11/2/99 5. Landscape Plans,date-stamped 10/20/99 6. Trash Enclosure Detail,date-stamped 10/20/99 7. Light Fixture Specifications,date-stamped 10/8/99 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 596-99 9. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the site plan date-stamped November 2, 1999, conforms to the general zoning requirements of Title 1100 with regard to setbacks, parking requirements, lighting and building height; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council acknowledges that the Mounds View Fire Marshal has reviewed the placement of fire hydrants to service the building and has found their location and numbers to be acceptable; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council acknowledges that the Director of Public Works has reviewed the drainage plan and has found it to be in conformance with the City's Local Water Management Plan; and, Resolution 5385 MSP Development Review November 3, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council acknowledges that the City Forester has reviewed the Landscape Plan and has found said plan to be acceptable for Mounds View's soils and climate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council approves the requested development review for a 46-room, senior assisted living facility located at 2670 County Road I, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall install signage to designate the County Road I access as being limited to "right in, right out." 2. Building signage shall be in compliance with the City Code and approved CUP. Adopted this 15th day of November, 1999 Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\559-99\5385CC.RES Item No. JO E Staff Report No. Meeting Date: November 15, 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 5386, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit for Spencer Mistelske at 2442 Laport Drive (Unimproved) to Allow for the Installation of a Driveway within the 100-Foot Wetland Buffer Date of Report: November 10, 1999 Background: On October 25, 1999, the City Council approved Resolution 5381, a resolution which authorized the execution of a limited use agreement by and between the City of Mounds View and Spencer Mistelske, property owner of two vacant lots on unimproved Laport Drive, to allow for the installation of a driveway over and across the unimproved Laport Drive right of way. Discussion: The approved agreement had a stipulation requiring Mr. Mistelske to come back before the Council for a wetland buffer permit in the event that the proposed driveway would encroach into the delineated wetland's 100-foot buffer. In the course of siting the driveway, the property owner realized that there were a number of older, mature trees that would need to be cut down to maintain the necessary distance from the wetland. Rather than remove significant trees, the property owner is requesting that the City approve a minor encroachment into the buffer according to the provided site plan Recommendation: Staff feels that given the extent of the encroachment (10 feet) and the ability to prevent a number of significant trees from being cut down, that approval of Resolution 5386 would be warranted. cLAnA Quo James Ericson, Planning Associate NADATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\575-99\WETBUFF.RPT EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY SWENSON LAND SURVEYING, INC. 14980 Waco Street RONALD J.SWENSON Ramsey,Minnesota 55303 TELEPHONE REGISTERED LAND ND SURVEYOR (612)427-1020 •Denotes Iron Monuments Found SURVEY FOR: npexice-R �is 7-E L$K E 0 Denotes Iron Monuments Set G R Scale 1 1 equals...Ai_feet Book 'h 3 Page t Invoice No. 346o pii.giliAvrEP 1-"- I— / —+ 1+ W -01 o LL o. / . O 0 •-�-* . \ \r , \ M��L,� T ;DRIVE R O W ,t ► 30,-/‘.----4-- o L/j O 9o.98 BJ „ �� 83.00 90.00 CX Z CO W11111kiN `� N 1 N °0 M House 1 [_ ;IN o 90.96 83.001.5 30 a<C4a,a/ /V89°59'57 E 4,Nte '• F6NcE ( G7_� 51ttig; F-ICANr TE I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of. Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, SMUDER ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. It does purport to show improvements or encroachments, if any. As survey d by me this 20th day of October 1999. 474-4- ,,IC1 app Swenson Land Surveying, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 5386 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLAND BUFFER PERMIT FOR SPENCER MISTELSKE, 2442 LAPORT DRIVE, PLANNING CASE 575-99 WHEREAS,Spencer Mistelske has requested approval of a Wetland Buffer Permit for property of which he is the owner,legally known as: Lots 2 and 3,Block 1,SMUDER Addition,Ramsey County,Minnesota WHEREAS,the above-described property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential; and, WHEREAS, Section 1010.08 of the Municipal Code states that a Wetland Buffer Permit is required when any construction activities are planned within one-hundred feet of a wetland; and, WHEREAS,no development activities or disturbances of any kind will occur within the wetland itself; and, WHEREAS,a portion of the proposed driveway encroaches into the 100-foot buffer area adjacent to the wetland; and, WHEREAS,Mr.Mistelske has drafted the site plan so as to maintain the greatest possible distance between the proposed driveway and the wetland while retaining as many significant and mature trees within the right of way. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the Wetland Buffer Permit for Spencer Mistelske contingent upon the following: 1. Only clean fill,substantially free of chemical pollutants and contaminants,shall be brought onto the site. 2. No waste--solid,hazardous or otherwise--shall be allowed to enter directly or indirectly into the wetland. Adopted this 15th day of November, 1999. Dan Coughlin,Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting,City Clerk/Administrator NADATA\GROUPS\C OMDE V\DE V CASES\575-99\53 86 CC.RES Chuck Whiting From: Riggs, Scott J. [sriggs@Kennedy-Graven.com] Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 3:48 PM To: 'chuckw@rcmnet.org' Subject: Non-Retainer Request-- Charter Commission Issues Chuck: Bob asked that I forward this to you -- this is the form I referenced earlier if the week. This is the first belated attempt at our new procedure. I believe that Bob has already discussed this to some degree with you. Please call (or e-mail) with questions. Scott NON-RETAINER WORK REQUEST FORM The work requested to performed, which is as follows: review of charter commission questions; research of matter; attend meetings; facilitation of city council and charter commission issues; etc. is covered under the non-retainer definition of the Agreement for Legal Services between the City of Mounds View and Kennedy & Graven Chartered. The estimate for legal fees to be incurred for this matter is: 8 to 10 hours ($920-$1150) . Such non-retainer work is approved up to the estimated amount by on , and work on this matter should begin. Such non-retainer work is disapproved by on and no work should be performed for this matter. Mailed copy sent Mailed copy received 1 Purchasing Authority PolicyFrom: Chuck Whiting [chuckw@rcmnet.org] Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:41 AM To: Chuck Whiting Subject: Purchasing Authority Policy Purchasing Authority Policy Employees shall be empowered to make purchases on behalf of the City in amounts commensurate with the responsibilities and authority held in their position. Purchases that exceed the amount need approval from the employee's supervisor. Operating Supplies Capital Items Legal and Consultant City Administrator $25,000 $15,000 $10,000 Department Head $10,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,000 Assistant Department Head $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 All purchases must be budgeted for, comply with City and state bidding and quoting policies, and have adequate funds available prior to purchase or initiating work. 470 Pillsbury Center /O Kennedy 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone Graven (612) 337-9310 fax CHARTERED http://www.kennedy-graven.com ROBERT C.LONG Attorney at Law Direct Dial(612)337-9202 email:rlong@kennedy-graven.com October 14, 1999 Chuck Whiting City Clerk-Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN 55112-1499 RE: Retainer for General Legal City Attorney Services Dear Chuck: As we discussed, this letter is intended to serve as a Retainer Agreement concerning the scope of legal services to be provided by Kennedy &Graven, Chartered (the "Firm") to the City of Mounds View (the "City") and the fees which will be charged for such services. If the City Council concurs with the provisions contained in this letter, please arrange to have it signed in the spaces provided and return a signed copy to me. 1. The City appoints the Firm as City Attorney with Robert C. Long acting as primary legal counsel with respect to the services described in this letter. Scott J. Riggs will serve as primary Assistant City Attorney. 2. The Firm agrees to perform all usual and customary legal services for the City in accordance with the terms of this letter. 3. The City agrees to compensate the Firm for services as follows: a) An annual retainer fee for the City's general civil legal services of$36,000 (based on a regular hourly rate of$105 per hour) payable in monthly installments of$3,000 per month, by the end of each month, commencing for services rendered during the twelve month period beginning January 1, 2000. Services to be covered by the retainer fee are as follows: 1) Attendance at regular City Council meetings during the twelve month retainer period to be determined by the City Clerk-Administrator; 2) Formal and informal legal advice to City staff and elected officials as requested; RCL-170255 MU125-11 Chuck Whiting October 14, 1999 Page 2 3) Preparation of Ordinances and Resolutions as requested; 4) Advising committees of the City from time to time as requested by staff; 5) Advising the City Council and staff, as necessary or as required, to discuss topics including, but not limited to important legislative or judicial developments; 6) Formal and informal advice on operating procedures and personnel matters including interpretations of federal, state and local rules and regulations relating to operating procedures, such as data privacy requirements, open meeting law requirements and other personnel and administrative requirements of federal, state or local law. b) For all other City legal services, including those described below, except for those services described in paragraphs 5 and 6, compensation at an hourly rate of$120 for Firm attorneys and$65 per hour for law clerks and$75 per hour for legal assistants: 1) Real estate matters; 2) Review and preparation of Tax Increment Finance documents and development agreements; (Steve Bubul would also be involved in TIF matters.) 3) General legal advice to the Mounds View EDA and attendance at EDA meetings; 4) Labor and employment matters other than routine or general advice; 5) Civil litigation matters, including condemnation and special assessment challenges; 6) Special projects which are so designated by the City Council or the City Clerk-Administrator, or other designated City staff, including attendance at City commission and committee meetings when requested in addition to the regular meetings covered as part of the retainer agreement, including all non-retainer files which have been opened prior to the date of this agreement. 4. The Firm shall also be separately reimbursed for any costs and disbursements which it incurs in connection with providing any of the services described in paragraph 3 of this letter; including computer assisted legal research at the rate charged by the provider. Reimbursable costs and disbursements shall not include charges for secretarial or word processing services, or any other unauthorized costs, such as the purchase of legal RCL-170255 MU125-11 Chuck Whiting October 14, 1999 Page 3 publications or attorneys' continuing legal education requirements. Billings by the Firm to the City for services, costs and disbursements shall be made monthly. The billing statement shall be of sufficient detail to adequately inform the City concerning the tasks performed, the attorney performing them,the time spent on each such task and the nature and the extent of costs and disbursements. The statement shall also show the total time spent and the fees, charged under category 3b and the total time spent under category 3a. Within the limits of its billing system, the Firm's billing statement shall also, as requested by the City Clerk- Administrator, show the types of work done in various categories and the time spent and fees attributable to each of such categories. 5. In instances where the Firm is authorized to act as approving bond counsel on a particular transaction, fees for services rendered by the Firm in such capacity shall be those usually and customarily charged by the Firm for such services and shall be negotiated on a fixed rate for each separate transaction. 6. The hourly rate for all attorneys of the Firm for services for which costs are passed through to a developer or applicants will be$135.00. For all civil litigation or formal administrative proceedings, commencing with the service on the City of a summons and complaint or formal charge or notice of administrative proceedings, the hourly rate for attorneys of the Firm will be$135.00. 7. The Firm will provide, without cost to the City, any relevant summaries of legislation of recent court decisions, so long as the Firm continues to provide such service generally to its clients. 8. It is the intention of the parties and it is hereby agreed that the "primary City Attorney" as used herein means and refers to Robert C. Long who will, except in the case of extraordinary circumstances involving disability, unavoidable conflict or other good and substantial reasons, perform, supervise and be responsible to the City for the legal services herein agreed upon. The Firm shall, upon request, provide the City with the names and qualifications of other attorneys employed by the Firm who may from time-to-time be directed to perform services described in this letter under the supervision of Robert Long. 9. The Firm agrees that it will not undertake the representation of any person or other entity during its appointment as general counsel in instances where such representation may create a potential conflict of interest,unless: a) The Firm reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect its relationship with the City; and b) The City and such other person or entity have consented after consultation. RCL-170255 MU125-11 Chuck Whiting October 14, 1999 Page 4 10. The Firm agrees that it will not, during its appointment as City Attorney, undertake the representation of any appointed official of the City or the City Clerk-Administrator in connection with any personal legal matter of such person; and will not during such appointment, absent the consent of the City Clerk-Administrator, undertake the representation of any other employee of the City. 11. The appointment of the Firm as City Attorney may be terminated by the City at any time and by the Firm upon 60-days' written notice to the City. Nothing in this letter or the City's acceptance shall be deemed to preclude the opportunity of the City to retain and appoint legal counsel other than the Firm to represent the City in any legal matters. 12. Subject to the rights of termination described in paragraph 11, the provisions of this letter shall be deemed to be automatically extended from year-to-year or extended with such modifications or adjustments as the City and the Firm may from time-to-time mutually agree. The provisions of this letter are understood and accepted. Dated: 0 1(-1 KENNEDY& GRAVEN, CHARTERED B � Y Robert C. Long City Attorney CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW By Dan Coughlin Its Mayor Dated: By Chuck Whiting City Clerk-Administrator RCL-170255 MU125-11 470 Pillsbury Center /6 I Kennedy 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone Graven (612) 337-9310 fax C H AR TER ED http://www.kennedy-graven.com ROBERT C.LONG Attorney at Law Direct Dial(612)337-9202 email:rlong@kennedy-graven.com October 14, 1999 Chuck Whiting City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Proposed Non-Retainer Increases for 2000 Dear Chuck: As we have discussed over the past few weeks since my letter of September 13, 1999 regarding proposed rate increases for 2000, I will amend my original proposal as follows: 1. No increase in the current retainer for general legal services, which will remain at $3,000 per month. However, Kennedy & Graven's billings will reflect that the regular hourly rate has gone from $100 to $105 per hour. 2. Increase from $115 to $120 per hour for non-retainer legal services paid by the city, such as real estate matters, litigation and legislative services. 3. Increase from $125 to $135 per hour for legal services paid by third parties, such as developers and utilities on development agreements, zoning matters and franchise matters This "pass through" rate of$135 per hour is our law firm's standard "pass through" rate paid by third parties, such as developers. At our meeting on October 15 with you and your staff, we will agree on steps to be taken to reduce legal costs to the city for non-retainer legal services and agree on procedures for when legal work is treated as non-retainer vs. retainer files. In addition, we will agree on steps that can be taken by your staff to collect money up front from third parties on development and real estate matters through the use of "deposit agreements" so there are sufficient funds to pay for legal work that is billed as a "pass through" to the third party developers. City staff will then be responsible for authorizing our office to proceed on a non-retainer third party project, collecting funds from the third party, and paying Kennedy & Graven invoices from those funds when invoices are due. RCL-170252 MU125-11 Chuck Whiting October 14, 1999 Page 2 of 2 As a result of implementing these changes, the city should be able to significantly reduce their overall legal costs for the year 2000 budget as follows: The city will pay a maximum of$36,000 for retainer legal services. The City will establish an estimated budget for non-retainer legal services paid by the city on projects that the city anticipates needed during the year 2000. However, there will, of course, be unexpected matters such as unexpected litigation, which could affect this non-retainer budget. And finally, all other costs will be reimbursed to the city by third parties, such as developers, requiring the city attorney services. In reviewing our files, I realize that we have not had an updated retainer agreement with the city since the 1997 calendar year. Therefore, I am attaching to this letter a proposed retainer agreement for the 2000 calendar year that reflects proposals outlined in this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I look forward to meeting with you and your staff on October 15. Sincerely, Robert ong City Attorney RCL:jes Enclosure JPD-152601 KG400-1 N RESOLUTION NO. 5388 RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW VOTING DELEGATES FOR POLICY ADOPTION VOTING AT THE CONGRESS OF CITIES CONFERENCE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, DECEMBER 4, 1999 WHEREAS, The City Council of Mounds View will be represented by Council Member Lynne Thomason at the National League of Cities Congress of Cities Conference in Los Angeles, California November 30 to December 4, 1999; and WHEREAS, The City will also be represented by City Administrator Charles Whiting at the conference; BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED,that Council Member Lynne Thomason is the City of Mounds View's designated voter on NLC Policy Adoption voting; and City Administrator Whiting is designated as the City's alternate voting representative in Council Member Thomason's absence. Passed this 15th Day of November, 1999. Mayor Dan Coughlin Attest: City Administrator Charles S. Whiting