Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1999/12/13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY,DECEMBER 13, 1999 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council November 22, 1999 Minutes B. Public Hearing,November 22, 1999 Minutes 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Recognition of Kristin LaVine, Mrs. Mounds View 6. REPORTS A. Y2K Update. B. Review of Council Administrator Retreat. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Contractor Licenses for Approval. C. Authorize hiring Debbie Jaspers as Payroll/Utility Billing Clerk effective December 27, 1999. D. Resolution No. 5404, Approving Personnel Policies Manual. E. Resolution No. 5403, Approving Data Practices Procedures. F. Resolution No. 5402,regarding Reappointment of Donald Wiski to the Transportation Advisory Board. G. Awarding of Bid for the Electronic Message Board 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR A. Citizens: Before speaking must give their full name and address for the minutes. Please limit your comments to three minutes. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 7:05 A. Public Hearing to Consider.Resolution 5387, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for Sunrise United Methodist Church, 7687 Long Lake Road. M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Agenda.doc Page Two City Council Agenda December 13, 1999 7:10 B. Public Hearing for the First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 642, an Ordinance Amending Title 1100, Chapters 1104 and 1121 of the Zoning Code, Related to Driveways and Curb Cuts. 7:15 C. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider a New Tobacco License at 2563 %2 Highway 10. 7:20 D. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 644 Concerning Billboards. E. Consideration of Resolution 5401, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit at 2551 Ridge Lane, requested by owner,Jamie Sharp. F. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 645, an ordinance Adopting the 1999 Long Term Financial Plan. G. Resolution 5399 Adopting the Year 2000 Budget and Property Tax Levy. H. Resolution 5406 Adopting the Year 2000 Budgets for Funds Other than the General Fund. I. Resolution 5405 Approving 1999 Transfers and Budget Revisions. J. Resolution to Continue Participation in the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program in 2000. K. Report on Commission's Review of City Remnant Parcel. L. Consideration of Resolution 5397 Appointing Commission Members and Clarifying Commission Membership. M. First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 646, an Ordinance Amending Title 400, Chapter 405, Related to Parks and Recreation Commission Terms and Vacancies. N. First Reading(Introduction) of Ordinance 647, an Ordinance Amending Title 300, Chapters 301-309, Related to Personnel Regulations. O. Review of Ordinance 648, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 3.01, Related to the Calling of Special Meetings by the Mayor and City Council. • M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Agenda.doc Page Three City Council Agenda December 13, 1999 P. Review of Ordinance 649, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 3.04, Subd. 1, Related to Adoption of Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions. Q. Review of Ordinance 650, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 5.05, Related to the Initiative Process and Resolutions Proposed in the City. R. Review of Ordinance 651, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 5.07, Related to the Referendum Process and Resolution Adoption. S. Review of Ordinance 652, an Ordinance Amending the Charter, Section 4.02, Related to Terms for Elective Office. T. Action to Enter into an Agreement with Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. for Wetland Planning and Land Use Options Facilitation. U. 2000 Proposed Pay Plan. V. Resolution 5407 Requesting Ramsey County to Include Identifying Language on County Highway 10 Signs for Mounds View. W. Resolution 5396, a Resolution Requiring Cable Broadcasting of City Business Conducted at Open Public Meetings. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday,January 3,2000 Next Council Meeting: Monday,January 3,2000 12. ADJOURNMENT M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Agenda.doc 7•MMEIMENIIMMIIIIMIIIIMENEME December 9, 1999 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Re: December 13, 1999 City Council Meeting We have a number of items on the agenda, most of which the Council should be familiar with from the work session. Here's a summary for Monday. 5. A. Recognition of Kristin LaVine, Mrs. Mounds View: Mrs. LaVine will be present and recognized by the Mayor for her representation of the community in the upcoming Mrs. Minnesota contest. 6. A. Y2K Update: As a report, Givonna will brief the Council and community on the• City's efforts to make the New Year's Eve holiday an uneventful one, as far as technical and safety issues go. 6. B. Report on Council/Administrator Retreat: I will recap the retreat of Tuesday as a report item. 7. E. Resolution 5404,Approving Personnel Policies Manual: This item approves the manual and the collection of policies within it as has been reviewed at work sessions. Procedurally, such policies being administrative in nature need only to be approved or changed by resolution. So in doing this, the ordinances pertaining to some of the policies should be removed and will be done so separately from this action. 7. F. Resolution 5042, Regarding the Reappointment of Donald Wiski to the Transportation Advisory Board: Mr. Wiski is an outgoing council member from Roseville who has served as the chair of the TAB of the Met Council, thereby favorably representing the north metro region. The North Metro Mayors Association asked for support in getting him reappointed despite soon being a former council member, hence this resolution. 10. C. Continuation of Public Hearing for Tobacco License: Council will recall this as a carry over from the past meeting. The applicant at that time had not not fully or accurately completed the application, nor has done so to date. The Council action here would be to continue the hearing, close it and reject the application. 10. D. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 644 Concerning Billboards: This item is up for its second reading and adoption. As requested, this hearing was notified in the Focus. 10. F. Second Reading and Adoption of 2000 Long Term Financial Plan: This is a requirement of the Charter that corresponds with the budget cycle. Council approved this 12/9/99 C:\Chuck\City Council\Council Meetings\Memos\December 9 City Council memo.doc item for the first reading and reflects the long-term capital improvements plan presented to the Council in its 2000 budget materials. It should be noted that the long-term financial plan gets approved each year despite its long-term title. This is because the Council can change it every year. 10. G. Resolution 5399 Adopting the Year 2000 Budget and Property Tax Levy: This action is required by law and reflects the budget work the Council has done over the last five months. 10. H. Resolution 5406 Adopting the Year 2000 Budgets for Other Funds: This resolution approves all the other fund budgets the Council has reviewed. Probably the most notably change in these non-General Fund budgets is the decrease in the street light utility charges. If the Council so chooses, a reiteration of the highlights of the budgets can be made once again for this and the previous item. 10. I. Resolution 5405 Approving 1999 Transfers and Budget Revisions: This is a typical cleanup action taken at the end of the year. Bruce will review this in better detail. 10. J. Resolution 5407 to Continue the City's Participation in the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program for 2000: This item is somewhat self explanatory. The City by approving LCA actions like this one gives itself the option of participating in LCA programs. 10. K. Report on Commissions Review of City Remnant Parcel: The Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission have reviewed the Walgreen's proposal. Rick will review their comments. 10. L. Resolution 5397 Appointing Commission Members and Clarifying Commission Membership: Givonna has put this together for the Council's review. 10. M. First Reading of Ordinance 646 Pertaining to Parks and Recreation Commission Terms and Vacancies: See Givonna's memo. 10. N. First Reading of Ordinance 647 Regarding Personnel Regulations: This ordinance is the second action noted above removing the personnel policies from ordinance that will from henceforth be in the personnel manual. 10. O. Through S. Regarding Charter Amendments: These items are the first readings of Charter amendments drafted by the City Attorney after discussions with both the Council and Charter Commission. The Charter Commission will want to review these and will be provided copies. The Attorney can review these items at the meeting on Monday. 10. T. Action to Approve Proposal for Environmental Consulting Services: The Council reviewed the proposal from Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. for doing the wetlands study and facilitating the public review of land use options for the "big woods" 12/9/99 C:\Chuck\City Council\Council Meetings\Memos\December 9 City Council memo.doc area and golf course. The proposal is in the packet. A simple motion to approve is recommended. The agenda is fairly long but most items should be familiar or be in the initial stages of discussion with further review coming at future meetings. Considering the length, I will not go into a lot of other detail here. One thing to note is today's lost of water for some reason in our system. It has been corrected as noted in Mike's email and the problem is studied. That's it for now, have a good weekend and see you Monday. 12/9/99 C:\Chuck\City Council\Council Meetings\Memos\December 9 City Council memo.doc MIIMIIMIIIIMMININIMIMINIIIMINIMENI PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 22, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, November 22, 1999, City Council Agenda Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Accept the November 22, 1999, City Council Agenda as Presented. Ayes—5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. (City Administrator Whiting requested the addition of Item L, Consideration of an Amendment to the Construction and Removal Agreement entered into between the City and the Property Owners of 8300 Fairchild Avenue) 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, October 15, 1999, City Council Minutes Mayor Coughlin stated it has been brought to his attention that a correction was approved to delete the vote tally listed on Page 17 of the October 25, 1999 City Council Meeting Minutes. He advised the Council, as per Open Meeting Law, there must be a record of every official vote taken by the Council. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Mary. To Reconsider the Vote and Re-Amend the City Council Minutes of October 25, 1999, to Add Back In the Vote Tally Listed on Page 17. Council Member Stigney stated he was agreeable to this, as long as that was all it was doing. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. C:AADMIN\MINUTES\Cc\1 I-22-99.cc.doc Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 7, fifth paragraph, second and third sentences to reflect the correct spelling of the name "Kysylyczyn." Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 7, fifth paragraph, second sentence, to indicate "...Mayor-elect of Roseville." Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 3, fifth paragraph, first sentence, to indicate "Mayor Coughlin advised that the Council Members are the leaders..." Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 5, fourth paragraph, second sentence, to indicate "...or degradation of staff..." Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 7, first paragraph, last sentence, to indicate "Attorney Long's attendance." Council Member Marty requested a correction to Page 18, fifth paragraph, second sentence, to indicate "...to change that number to three." MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To accept the November 15, 1999 City Council minutes as corrected. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 6. REPORTS Council Member Stigney reported he attended the Planning Commission meeting on November 17, where discussion was held regarding the Conditional Use Permit request for Sunrise United Methodist Church, located at 7687 Long Lake Road. He stated this item was listed on the current City Council Consent Agenda. He noted discussion of the proposed ordinance amending the Zoning Code pertaining to curb cuts and driveway widths, which is also listed on the Council's Consent Agenda. He indicated there was detailed discussion of a resolution recommending denial of the proposed ordinance relating to billboards, which was scheduled for consideration during current Council Business. Council Member Stigney stated the Planning Commission was provided a presentation by TOLD Development Company pertaining to their proposal to develop a Walgreens store on the property located adjacent to City Hall, and use of the corner property as a land trade with the City. He indicated there was considerable discussion regarding how the proposal would fit in with the City's operations and the surrounding uses. He advised that the Planning Commission unanimously voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the project. Mayor Coughlin reported at the Staff/Council Retreat which was held the previous Tuesday evening, there was much frank discussion and some very good recommendations pertaining to how they might better perform their job functions. He noted one of the items discussed that the Council refrain from debate of items until there is a motion on the floor, and that other than Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 requesting points of clarification, the Council conduct all discussion during the regular debate of the motion. He requested the Council implement this practice in the future. He suggested the Council also consider creating some Council by-laws during the next Council/Staff Retreat. He advised that several of the City commissions have by-laws, and it would also be in order for the Council to have a basic set of rules, policies, and procedures from which they can draw. Mayor Coughlin reported he attended the meeting of the I-35W Corridor Coalition, where there approval of the 2000 budget, and discussion of a number of issues, including planning for the upcoming year. He indicated the group is in the second phase of planning, having gathered information to this point. He explained as some members who have attended the Joint Meeting with the Metropolitan Council are aware, a fair amount of research has been done, and they are now planning how to utilize this information for better regional planning. Mayor Coughlin reported he attended the meeting of the Pinewood Elementary School Facilities Committee, where they are continuing to work on the issues, and determine the needs of the school as relates to space, air quality, and similar concerns. He advised this body would hold a variety of meetings prior to the beginning of the year, to consider these issues. He indicated they are making progress. Mayor Coughlin reported he had the opportunity to meet in a discussion session with Senator Steve Novak. He commented it was a pleasure to speak with an individual of the Senator's caliber, who is very knowledgeable on the issues, and very in tune with the area, in general. He stated this was an enjoyable meeting. Mayor Coughlin stated he would attend a meeting on Monday, at 12:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, along with County Commissioner, Tony Bennet, the Commissioner's assistant, and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, in order to commence preliminary dialogue regarding the redevelopment of Highway 10. He noted that the discussion would include the re- naming of the road, which has been an issue of concern, and extended an invitation to the Council Members to attend this meeting as well. Mayor Coughlin stated a Public Information Session would be held at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, in the Council Chambers, for the purpose of discussing the environmental impacts of the Anoka County-Blaine Airport expansion proposals. He indicated that a variety of people would be present, including State Representative Barbara Haake, representatives of the Rice Creek Watershed District, and some of the individuals and groups who are concerned regarding environmental impacts. He stated that the public is welcome to attend this meeting. City Administrator Whiting advised that earlier that evening the Council held the public hearing review of the proposed Year 2000 Budget, and this item would be re-broadcast on cable television, for those individuals who missed the proceedings. He indicated a review of the proposed budget is presented in the November/December issue of the Mounds View Matters, and interested parties may also attend the Truth in Taxation hearing which will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, December 6. He added that anyone with questions could contact City staff through the telephone numbers listed in the Mounds View Matters. City Administrator Whiting stated City Hall will be closed on Thanksgiving day, and all day Friday, in observance of the holiday. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Set Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, December 13, 1999, to Consider Resolution 5387, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for Sunrise United Methodist Church, 7687 Long Lake Road. C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday, December 13, 1999, for the First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 642, an Ordinance Amending Title 1100, Chapters 1104, 1107 and 1121 of the Zoning Code, Related to Driveways and Curb Cuts. D. Consideration of Resolution 5390, to Support a Multi-Jurisdictional Law Enforcement Training Center. E. Contractor Licenses for Approval. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, C, D, and E as presented. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he was unable to attend the previous Council Meeting, however, he had heard mention of a comment he had previously made in regard to the City Administrator. He clarified that he was simply opposed to hiring an Assistant City Administrator at the proposed wage, and was attempting to point out that there might be other alternatives, such as increasing the City Administrator's pay, and hiring a secretary. He explained he had not condemned the job performance of City Administrator Whiting. Mr. Jahnke stated in regard to recent articles published in the newspaper, he did not like to see this type of repoire represented in the newspaper, and would like this to stop. He stated he was aware that Mayor Coughlin has his opinion, which is good in some views, and Council Member Stigney also has his opinions. He requested both consider the other's views as simply that, and either agree or disagree. Mr. Jahnke stated he was pleased with Mayor Coughlin's presence at the Council Meetings. He stated he could remember Council Member Stigney fighting diligently for some of the changes that the citizens desired, and fighting for the road reconstruction issue, which is how he believed Mayor Coughlin became involved in the matter. He stated these issues represent the views of each Council Member, and he would like to see them taken as such. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mr. Jahnke stated he had read the Mayor's Message in the Mounds View Matter, and this was good. He stated City Administrator Whiting had indicated that some of the employee turnover in the City is a based upon this, however, he was not certain he agreed, as there has been much turnover for many companies lately. He reiterated that these are simply views. There were no further requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. A Public Hearing to Consider a New Tobacco License for Tobacco Empire at 2563 %2 Highway 10. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 p.m. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated approximately one month prior, she received an application for a new tobacco license at 2563 1/2 Highway 10, which is located in Mounds View Square. She indicated that two different individuals had contacted her regarding the application for this address, and the application was submitted by an individual named "John,"who provided no last name, on behalf of Nayfha Wraidt. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated she sent a letter to Ms. Wraidt indicating that this item would be listed on the current City Council agenda for consideration, however, she has not received a response. She advised that some of the information contained in the application was not verifiable, including the insurance policy numbers. She indicated that the Police Department was unable to confirm the existence of the applicant, and although this does not mean the individual does not exist, there is no record of this person in State and Federal records. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed stated she has spoken with City Attorney, Scott Riggs regarding the application, and he has advised that the request be denied, at least until all of the necessary information is provided to complete the application. City Attorney Long stated the City Code is somewhat vague and does not specifically address the situation of acting upon a new license request, and the procedural steps required to deny the request. He explained that the Code only addresses situations of revocation or suspension of the tobacco license, which require 10-day notice of adverse action. City Attorney Long recommended the Council continue the public hearing, and not grant the tobacco license at this time, as the application is incomplete. He further recommended the Council direct staff to provide the applicant with written notice, 10-days prior to the continuation of the public hearing, and advise that at that point, denial of the license will be recommended, based upon the factors that have been indicated. He pointed out that this would prevent the procedural issue of whether or not the applicant received proper notice of the City's intent to deny. He suggested it might be appropriate to clarify these situations in the Code, at some point in the future. There was no public input. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 Quick/Thomason. To Continue the Public Hearing, and to Direct Staff to Prepare Notice to the Applicant that at the Next Public Hearing, it Will Be the Intent of the City to Deny the Application, Based Upon the Lack of Information Provided. Council Member Marty inquired if the motion was simply to direct staff to notify the applicant. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct. City Administrator Whiting stated staff would attempt to schedule this item for consideration at the December 13, 1999 City Council Meeting. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. B. Consideration of NSP Request to Modify Method Used to Calculate the Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Sales in the City of Mounds View. City Administrator Whiting stated after the recent action the City has taken with regard to the franchise fee, Northern States Power Company approached staff and suggested changing the method of determining the collection of the franchise fee. He indicated that Northern States Power is proposing they utilize a meter based charged, rather than a usage based charge. City Administrator Whiting advised there is some good logic for considering this proposal, in that the industry is facing de-regulation, and Northern States Power Company could actually find themselves in the position of being the transporter, rather than the seller of electric and natural gas. He explained this would mean that the company's businesses throughout the nation would be able to purchase wholesale, and gas and electricity would be transported over the system to businesses within the community. He pointed out that if the system collects the fees based upon usage, and the electricity or gas is being sold somewhere else, there could be some difficulties in calculating and collecting the fees. City Administrator Whiting stated he, Mayor Coughlin, and Finance Director Kessel met with John Theis and Senior Attorney, Harold Bagley of Northern States Power Company to discuss the pros and cons of this proposal. He indicated the City would require time to review how the cost would actually be divided amongst the users in the community, if it is collected on a per meter basis. He explained that there is some concern there might be a tendency to shift more toward the homeowners, and away from the businesses, based upon the future concerns of Northern States Power Company. City Administrator Whiting advised some of these concerns highly effect the largest users in the community, and it is necessary to have an understanding of their concerns, in addition to those of the residents. He stated staff suggests that rather than attempt to act upon the issue at this time, the members of the Chamber of Commerce and the business community meet with staff during the first half of 2000, prior to the budget, and attempt to determine the specifics regarding the City's consumption. He pointed out that the current franchise ordinance will expire at the end of 2000, and the debate of this issue will continue again in the summer. He advised that at this time, more information is necessary, and staff does not recommend any change to the Council's commitment to the year 2000. Mayor Coughlin inquired if staff's recommendation was to continue the discussion of this issue at some point during the first half of 2000. City Administrator Whiting stated this was correct. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to continue the discussion, and direct staff to schedule the matter for consideration at some point in the future. City Administrator Whiting extended his thanks to Northern States Power Company representative, John Theis, who will be retiring at the end of the year. He commented that Mr. Theis has always been very accessible, and helpful with information. He added that although Mr. Theis devotes much time to Northern States Power Company, he has still attended City functions, and has been very active in the Chamber and Commerce and the community. He expressed his appreciation to Mr. Theis for his time. Mayor Coughlin congratulated Mr. Theis for a race well run. C. Award of Bid for Locker Room Remodeling at Community Center; Wold Architects will be presenting. Terri Blattenbauer, YMCA Program Executive stated on September 13, 1999, the City Council approved a resolution to authorize the use of TIF funds for showers and changing rooms at the Community Center. She indicated Craig Anding of Wold Architects would present this proposal, and award the bid for this project. Craig Anding, representative of Wold Architects thanked the Council for the opportunity to present this proposal and award the bid for the project. He indicated bids were taken in the Council Chambers on November 18, and a total of eight bids were submitted, all within a very acceptable range, and the low bid was submitted by Lund Martin, Inc., for the amount of $86,300. Mr. Anding explained that in order to identify the costs, quality and time schedule for delivery of the lockers, two alternates were considered. He indicated the target date for the opening and operation of the facility is February 1, 2000. He stated the first alternate, Republic Arch Metal, and Penco, could deliver the lockers in 22 weeks, which is beyond the target date, and for that alternate, Lund Martin bid $8,770. He explained that the second alternate, DeBerg, will provide premium quality, all-welded lockers, which are more expenses, however, the delivery time is much better at nine weeks, and is within the target date. He indicated that the Lund Martin bid $11,800 for these lockers. Mr. Anding stated that after discussing this matter with Ms. Blattenbauer, and considering the budget, which was originally established at $110,000, staff recommends the project be awarded to Lund Martin, Inc., with the base bid of$86,300, and alternate two, for the Deberg premium quality lockers at $11,800, for a total contract of$98,100. He indicated that Lund Martin is a reputable contractor, and they have indicated they are prepared to commence the project upon Council approval. Director of Public Works Ulrich advised that someone should have the authority to sign change orders for this project. Mayor Coughlin requested City Attorney Long's opinion on this matter. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 City Attorney Long stated it would be appropriate to authorize a City employee to sign the change orders. Finance Director Kessel pointed out that since TIF funds are proposed for this project, the actual entity approving the item should be the Economic Development Authority. Mayor Coughlin indicated the Council could continue the consideration of this matter to the EDA meeting, which would be held directly following the Council Meeting. City Administrator Whiting advised that in addition to consideration of this item during the EDA meeting, the Council should consider EDA Item A, Consideration of an Amendment to the Construction and Removal Agreement entered into between the City and property Owners of 8300 Fairchild Avenue, during the Council Meeting. He indicated this matter requires City Council approval. He suggested the Council proceed with the remainder of Council Business, and prior to adjournment of the Council Meeting, act upon this item. D. First Reading of Ordinance for Long Term Financial Plan. Mayor Coughlin stated this item was discussed and addressed by Finance Director Kessel at the Council's previous Work Session. He inquired if the Council Members or staff had any questions or comments regarding this matter. City Administrator Whiting advised that the Long Term Financial Plan is adopted as an ordinance in order to provide citizens the ability to petition against it, within 60 days of adoption. He stated the ordinance is available for public inspection in his office. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve the First Reading of the Ordinance Pertaining to the City's Long Term Financial Plan. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 644, and Ordinance Amendment to Allow Billboards by Conditional Use Permit. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to examine the issue of whether or not billboards should be allowed on the golf course and nearby City property, as a means to provide some additional revenue for the City. He indicated that in the review process, staff determined there were two issues, which required to be addressed. He explained that portions of the golf course property are zoned both CRP and PF, and the ordinance does not permit any signage in these Zoning Districts. He added that billboards specifically, are not allowed anywhere in the community. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff has drafted two ordinances to address these two issues separately. He explained that Ordinance 637, which would allow and set standards for signage in the CRP and PF Zoning Districts has been given first reading approval by the City Council, after a public hearing, and this was in concurrence with the Planning Commission's recommendation. He explained there was some concern regarding whether or not the language of the ordinance might possibly restrict the City's objective with regard to the billboards, therefore, final approval has been delayed until the billboard issue is resolved. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 Community Development Director Jopke indicated staff has also drafted Ordinance 644, which would allow billboards in certain areas of the community by Conditional Use Permit, and sets standards in terms of location. He explained as it is drafted, this ordinance indicates the billboards would be located along or north of Highway 118 or County Highway 10, and must be located on City property. He added that there must be an approved lease, oriented towards Highway 10 and I-35W, and the billboards must be located a minimum of 250 feet from residentially zoned property. He advised the City Attorney has indicated some concern with regard to this provision, in that the billboards could not be restricted to City owned property. Community Development Director Jopke advised that Ordinance 644 also sets the minimum spacing requirements for billboards at 1,500 feet, measured on the same side of the same roadway. He indicated that maximum sign area could not exceed 700 square feet, although some temporary extensions, not in excess of 25 percent of the billboard area, as long as they are an integral part of the design of the billboard, would be permitted. He explained the billboards could consist of no more than two faces, which can either be back to back or angled, and no more than 8 feet apart. He indicated the maximum sign height is similar to other signs in the community at 35 feet, and the billboards could not obstruct vision or interfere with the view of traffic or other signs. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Planning Commission approved a resolution, which recommends to the City Council denial of Ordinance 644, based upon four findings as follows: 1. Large billboard signs are not appropriate uses of property within CRP Conservation Recreational Preservation and PF Public Facilities zoning districts. These districts are intended to provide recreational opportunities, open space and protect the natural environment where possible. Large advertising signs are not consistent with that intent and are more appropriate to commercial and industrial zoning districts. 2. Large billboard signs can be visually distractive and may detract from the neighborhood and promote a negative image for the community. 3. The City Attorney has advised City staff that the City cannot limit billboards to city-owned properties only. 4. A permit will be required from the State of Minnesota to locate billboards along state and federal highways. State statutes restrict such signs to commercial and industrial zoning districts only. The contemplated sites for additional billboards are not zoned commercial or industrial. Community Development Director stated the Planning Commission limited their review to land use impacts, in their role as a land use advisory body, and did not consider economic factors, which is within the purview of the City Council. Community Development Director Jopke requested the Council determine how they would like to proceed with this issue. He explained that if the Council desires to proceed with the proposed ordinance, staff would suggest they discuss the ordinance and obtain further advice from the City Attorney regarding his concern pertaining to the restriction of billboards to City-owned property. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 Community Development Director Jopke advised that the Council could give first reading approval to the ordinance and direct staff to make any necessary amendments. He explained that the Council should also determine whether or not a public hearing should be held on this ordinance, after which second reading and adoption could be scheduled. Community Development Director Jopke indicated staff has scheduled this matter for additional discussion at the December 6 City Council Work Session. He advised that if the Council did not wish to proceed with Ordinance 644, they could deny first reading approval that evening. He explained that second reading and adoption of Ordinance 637 could be scheduled for a future meeting, once the status of Ordinance 644 has been determined. Mayor Coughlin clarified that this was the first reading of Ordinance 644, and first reading approval of the ordinance does not preclude the Council from denial at the second reading. He stated it would be in order to refer the matter to further Work Session discussion, in that the Council has not discussed the issue in quite some time. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve First Reading of Ordinance 644, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 (Signs and Billboards) of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to Billboards; Planning Case SP-071-99, as Amended to Direct Staff to Schedule a Public Hearing at the Second Reading of the Ordinance. Council Member Stigney stated in his capacity as Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, he was aware that there was much discussion at great depth, during many meetings with the Planning Commission, with regard to this the matter. He indicated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the ordinance, and therefore, he does not support this action. Council Member Marty stated one of the summations provided by Community Development Director Jopke indicated "The Planing Commission, as the City's advisory commission on land use matters, confined their review to the land use impacts of the proposed ordinance, and did not consider the economic factors. The consideration of the economic factors is the role of the City Council." He stated he would stress this point. Council Member Marty advised that the City is faced with escalating bond payments at the golf course, and although he did not like billboards himself, he would rather have billboards on the golf course, than have the City become financially burdened. He explained that he viewed this as a means to prevent this, without having to raise taxes or consider more Interfund loans. He commented that even though these loans would be paid back with interest, he would prefer not to have to loan the golf course money, when there is a possible means to alleviate the situation. He advised that a public hearing should be held on the matter. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the motioner would agree to amend the motion to schedule a public hearing at the second reading of the ordinance. Council Member Quick agreed. Council Member Stigney stated the Planning Commission had discussed the financial impacts of this proposal, however, they felt it only within their purview to comment upon the land use issue, Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 as this was the direction provided them. He pointed out however, they thoroughly examined all of the factors before coming to their decision. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. F. Follow-up to Y2000 Budget Public Meeting. City Administrator Whiting stated this item was placed on the agenda to provide the Council the opportunity to follow-up on any of the issues discussed at the Y2000 Budget public hearing, if they so desired. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would care to further discuss any issues pertaining to the Y2000 Budget. The Council had no further questions or comments. G. Review of Golf Course Interfund Loan. City Administrator Whiting stated this item pertains to the Interfund loan being considered to address the cash flow shortages the golf course will face in the next several years. He stated staff would suggest the Council discuss this item at the next Work Session, and make their decision at the December 13 Council Meeting. He explained there are some options available in regard to funding the proposed loan, and staff and the City's TIF attorneys are still in the process of determining the ability of the City to utilize the interest on TIF funds, earned prior to June of 1997. City Administrator Whiting indicated other possible funding alternatives include the General Fund or other City's funds, however, there should be adequate discussion of all options, prior to Council action. He stated if the Council so desires, staff will schedule the discussion of this matter for the December 6 Work Session, with formal consideration scheduled at the December 13 City Council Meeting. Council Member Stigney inquired if this item should be addressed by the EDA, as it relates to the use of TIF money. He explained that the Council has not met with the EDA and the EDC regarding the use of TIF in the City, and he believes this is a prerequisite to taking any action on this matter. City Administrator Whiting advised that a meeting had been scheduled earlier in the month, however, adequate attendance was unavailable. He indicted staff could attempt to schedule another meeting, if the Council so desired. Mayor Coughlin inquired if this transfer would require to be addressed this year, in that the first payment is due on January 1, 2000. Finance Director Kessel advised that the matter should be addressed before the 1999 books are closed, however, that will not occur until March of 2000, therefore, some time is available. He stated ideally, the sooner the matter is resolved the better. He indicated that the source of the loan, and whether it is the decision of the City Council or the EDA, is subject to discussion. He Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 explained that the golf course is a City operation, therefore, he would assume the City Council would direct the matter to the EDA, if that entity is who will make the loan. Mayor Coughlin inquired if this would be if based upon whether or not they would utilize TIF funding. Finance Director Kessel stated this was correct. Council Member Stigney stated he did not oppose discussing the matter and reviewing this an other options, however, prior to acting upon the matter, a joint meeting should be held between the City Council, the EDA and the EDC. He indicated he would not feel comfortable acting upon the matter until this meeting transpires. Mayor Coughlin stated he would assume, based upon his personal scheduling considerations, that such a meeting could not be arranged until some time in January. City Administrator Whiting suggested the Council could proceed with the recommended schedule, however, postpone the actual implementation of the transfer to a point to be determined in the future. He advised that the loan will accrue interest if it is made prior to the date it is required, and it would be preferable to leave the money in its original fund until such time as it is necessary to transfer it. Council Member Quick inquired if staff was suggesting the Council move approval that date, with the transfer to occur at a later date. City Administrator Whiting stated this was correct. Mayor Coughlin inquired if this would be contingent upon the joint meeting with the EDA and EDC. City Administrator Whiting stated this was correct. He pointed out that the Council had indicated they would like to have the TIF policy resolved by March, and this would probably be in concurrence with the suggested schedule. MOTION/.SECOND: Marty/ . To Approve Transferring the Funds After the City Council, the EDA, and the EDC Meet Jointly, to Determine the Source of the Funds. Finance Director Kessel advised that there would be some discussion of the golf course at the December 6 Work Session, and suggested the Council postpone any action until after that meeting. He explained this discussion would provide clarification regarding the exact amount of the loan, and hopefully a better understanding of the funding options for the loan, as well. Council Member Marty withdrew the motion. Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to defer this item to further discussion at the December 6, 1999 City Council Work Session. H. Consideration of Resolution 5391, Approving TH 10 Jurisdictional Transfer. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this item is the consideration of Resolution 5391, approving the jurisdictional transfer of TH 10. He explained Highway 10 will eventually be turned back to Ramsey County, and this resolution completes that jurisdictional transfer with the City Council's approval. Director of Public Works Ulrich advised that MNDot will give the County approximately 1.28 million dollars, for the pavement rehabilitation, traffic signal upgrades, opticon that might be installed, and LED on all of the traffic lights on Highway 10. He explained that this money would also be utilized to address some minor safety concerns with regard to some of the intersections on TH 10, which primarily pertain to pedestrian crossings, and some safe areas in the middle of the intersections. Director of Public Works Ulrich indicated if the 1.28 million dollars is determined to be inadequate for what the County deems necessary for this work, they will request turnback funds from MNDot to complete the project, which is proposed to commence, and also be completed in 2001. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Quick. To Approve Resolution No. 5391, a Resolution Approving the Jurisdictional Transfer of Trunk Highway 10. Director of Public Works Ulrich noted a typographical error on Page 1, seventh paragraph of the resolution was amended to indicate `Be It Further Resolved," and a corrected copy was provided to the Assistant to the City Administrator. He explained that the date of adoption was amended to indicate "Adopted this 221 day of November, 1999." Council Member Stigney inquired when the transfer was expected to take place. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated the transfer would occur on January 1, 2000. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. I. City Cable TV Broadcast Policy. Mayor Coughlin explained that he had added this item to the previous City Council agenda, primarily for the purpose of discussion, however, there was not sufficient time to consider the matter during that meeting. He suggested, in light of concerns that have been raised on all sides regarding broadcast policy, and which meetings are televised and which are not, he would recommend the Council implement a policy that requires all City committees, boards, commissions, or any groups that are subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law and utilize the City facilities, to be covered by the cable television broadcasts, subject to availability of the video and technical staff. He requested the Council consider this recommendation, and, if they so desire, direct City staff to craft a resolution to that end. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Direct Staff to Draft a Resolution to Implement a Policy that Requires All City Committees, Boards, Commissions, or Any Groups that are Subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law and Utilize the City Facilities, to be Covered by the Cable Television Broadcasts, Subject to Availability of the Video and Technical Staff, and to Bring the Resolution Forward to the Council for Further Discussion at a Future Work Session, and Consideration at an Upcoming Council Meeting, As Amended to Indicate that If the Groups are Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 14 Expending City Funds, the Meetings Will Occur in the Council Chambers, Or in the City Hall Building. Council Member Stigney inquired how this policy would apply to the Charter Commission. Mayor Coughlin stated the Charter Commission is subject to Open Meeting Law, and if they utilize City facilities of any sort, they would also be subject to this policy. Council Member Quick inquired if any commission or other bodies of government that expend City funds would therefore be required to hold their meetings at the City Hall. Mayor Coughlin stated they would not necessarily be required to hold their meetings in the City Hall, however, if they did, they would be subject to the policy. Council Member Quick advised that the City Hall is the seat of government, and many years ago, meetings of the City Council had been held offsite, which resulted in a problem within the community, regarding the accessibility to the Council Meetings. He stated he would like staff to craft verbiage which indicates that if the groups are expending City funds, the meetings will occur in the Council Chambers, or in the City Hall building. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the seconder would agree to this amendment. Council Member Marty agreed. Council Member Stigney pointed out that the remote broadcasts of meetings such as those at the Pinewood Elementary School would be contradictory to this. Mayor Coughlin clarified that this motion was to direct professional legal staff and administrative staff to draft a resolution to address the foreseeable concerns, after which, the resolution would be brought before the Council for discussion at a future Work Session. He explained that if there are additional concerns or suggestions at that time, the Council could amend the draft resolution. City Attorney Long stated in his understanding, there were three points for consideration. He stated that staff would be directed to draft a resolution or ordinance that would require City related groups subject to Open Meeting Law to meet in the City Hall building, if they are receiving public funds. He explained that this would exclude certain functions, such as those of the School District, which are subject to Open Meeting Law, however, do not receive City funds. City Attorney Long stated the second point pertains to meetings held within the building, which would be subject to being broadcast, and subject to broadcast availability. He stated he assumed, therefore, they would not be required to cancel a meeting if staff was not present, and would simply indicate that staffing was not available to broadcast the meeting when it occurred. City Attorney Long indicated that a question arises with the issue of attempting to require meetings be held in the City facility. He explained for example, the Parks and Recreation Commission does not receive City funds, per se, however, it does receive City staff support, therefore, language may be required to specifically address this situation. He stated however, the Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 15 intent appears to pertain to City related functions, and boards and commissions, all of which would be subject to the policy. Mayor Coughlin added that the City Attorney could report back to the Council if anything was found to be untenable in this regard. Council Member Stigney stated that the Charter Commission meetings consist of a general meeting, at which all members are present, however, the Commission members then split into separate committees, which meet in different rooms. He stated he was uncertain how the policy could be implemented as indicated in the motion. Council Member Marty explained that generally, after the Charter Commission breaks into separate groups, they come back together, and the different groups provide a summation of their discussion. He stated in his opinion, this summation would suffice for broadcasting purposes. Mayor Coughlin stated they could certainly discuss the particular situation of any individual group at a later point, however, the goal to be considered is to keep the public informed regarding anything that relates to them directly or indirectly, and impacts, or has the potential to impact their lives. Ayes—4 Nays— 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. J. Resolution Approving Fee Increases for 2000. Mayor Coughlin stated this item is the continuation of a motion made at the November 15 City Council Meeting, by Council Member Marty and Council Member Thomason, and the motion is again on the floor. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No. 5382, a Resolution Approving Amendment to the City of Mounds View's Uniform Schedule of Fees and Charges, Exhibit A Attached. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff has attempted to clarify some confusion at the previous meeting concerning the provisions of the proposal relating to fee increases. He stated three items have been revised on Exhibit A of the resolution. He explained that two of the revisions pertain to the fees charged for Planning Commission mailed agendas, and Planning Commission mailed minutes, which staff suggests be increased from $10 to $54, and from $20 to $144, respectively, to reflect actual costs. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the third revision pertains to the plan check fees. He stated staff suggests additional plan check fees be charged on those projects that require substantial staff review. He advised that the new language attached to the resolution indicates there will be a plan check fee of 65 percent of the permit fee for all commercial permits, residential permits, new dwellings, dwelling additions, garages, garage additions, decks, sheds over 216 square feet, and major remodeling of homes. He explained that these projects require a plan review, and therefore, should require a plan check fee. Community Development Director Jopke stated other items that require permits, such as roofing, siding, window replacement, driveways, and fences do not require a plan review by City staff, Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 16 and therefore, staff suggests these projects do not require an additional plan check fee. He indicated that the language in Exhibit A of the resolution reflects this. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff recommends approval of Resolution 5382. Council Member Marty inquired if the proposed resolution, as drafted, would include staff's background information, which is very specific. Community Development Director Jopke advised that the resolution will reflect those projects that will require a plan check fee, however, it does not include those projects that do not require a plan check fee. He explained that staff would interpret this to be applicable to only those items listed in Exhibit A. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. K. Update on Filling Vacant Positions in the Community Development Department. Community Development Director Jopke stated, as the Council is aware, there are two vacant positions in the Community Development Department. These are the Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector and the Economic Development Coordinator positions. He indicated that staff has advertised and interviewed candidates for each of these positions. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff is prepared to offer these positions to two individuals, subject to Council approval. Staff suggests the Council approve Resolution 5392, which is a resolution approving the hire of Jeremiah Anderson as the Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector, and Resolution 5393, which approves the hiring of Aaron Parish for the position of Economic Development Coordinator. Mayor Coughlin inquired if one motion approving both resolutions simultaneously would be in order, or if these items should be handled separately. City Attorney Long stated it would be acceptable to approve both resolutions simultaneously. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution 5392, a Resolution Approving the Appointment of Jeremiah Anderson to the Position of Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector, and Resolution 5393, a Resolution Approving the Appointment of Aaron Parish to the Position of Economic Development Coordinator, as Recommended by Staff. Council Member Stigney stated the Economic Development Coordinator position was previously funded through TIF, and inquired if this would be the case with the new hire as well. Community Development Director Jopke advised the funding of the position has not changed. Council Member Stigney inquired if the Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector position would be funded strictly through the General Fund Community Development Director Jopke stated this was correct. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 17 Ayes— 5 Nays—0 Motion carried. L. Consideration of an Amendment to the Construction and Removal Agreement entered into between the City and Property Owners of 8300 Fairchild Avenue. Community Development Director explained that the Council authorized staff to proceed through the Housing Replacement Program, to assist with the demolition of the old dwelling located at 8300 Fairchild Avenue. He indicated this was somewhat different than past practice, in that previously the City has acquired the property, cleared it, and then sold it to a developer. He explained that in this case, staff was utilizing the second option of the Housing Replacement Program, which allows the existing property owner to assist with the demolition of the old building, however, the property does not actually change hands. Community Development Director Jopke stated, in this particular case, the original agreement indicated that the City would be responsible for the demolition, and for administratively carrying it out. He explained that in this case, it made more sense for the property owner to handle the demolition, and for the City to reimburse the cost of the demolition, as long as the property owner presented staff with three bids, and the low bid was utilized, which has occurred. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the original maximum funding amount for the demolition was $15,000, and the low bid that was accepted was $8,950. He indicated that the item before the Council is an amendment to the original agreement to allow this matter to proceed, with the property owner being responsible for administering the demolition, and the City reimbursing the cost. Mayor Coughlin inquired, as this item is officially scheduled on the EDA agenda, if it would be more appropriate to recess the Council Meeting to the EDA meeting, and refer the item in question back to the Council Meeting. City Attorney Long stated this would be acceptable, however, what they were presently doing was perfectly appropriate. He explained the reason this is a City Council item, rather than an EDA item, is that the original agreement was between the City and the property owner, and therefore, the amendment was drafted with the City as a party. He advised that this item required City Council approval, and suggested the Council could take action upon the matter at this time, and remove it from the EDA agenda during the EDA meeting. Mayor Coughlin inquired, in order to provide a cleaner break, if it was the consensus of the Council to recess the Council Meeting, and open the EDA meeting. The Council agreed. Mayor Coughlin recessed the Council Meeting to the EDA meeting at 8:16 p.m. Following adjournment of the EDA meeting, Mayor Coughlin re-opened the City Council Meeting at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Coughlin stated the final item before the Council is consideration of the amendment to the Construction and Removal Agreement entered into between the City and the property owners of 8300 Fairchild Avenue. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 18 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve the Amendment to the Construction and Removal Agreement Entered Into Between the City and the Property Owners of 8300 Fairchild Avenue. Ayes— 5 Nays—0 Motion carried. Council Member Quick extended his appreciation to staff for a job well done. 11. Truth in Taxation Meeting: Monday,December 6, 1999—6:00 P.M. Next Council Work Session: Monday, December 6, 1999 Next Council Meeting: Monday December 13, 1999—7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 1-/ 8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Public Hearing November 22, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10,Mounds View,MN 55112 6:05 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 6:05 p.m. City Administrator Whiting stated it is the City's tradition to hold a budget overview public hearing every year, prior to the Truth in Taxation hearings in December. He indicated the Truth in Taxation meeting has been scheduled for 6:00 p.m., December 6, 1999, at which time the final budget hearing will occur. He noted the Council has the option to extend the discussion for another week beyond that date, and make their decision on the matter at the December 13, 1999 City Council Meeting. He explained that this public hearing is the precursor to the final hearing, and provides that if changes are necessary, based upon public comment, or Council or staff input, they can be made, and the budget can be presented again in two weeks. City Administrator Whiting stated the November/December issue of the Mounds View Matters presents the highlights of the material which will be discussed. He added that citizens could also contact him directly at City Hall to express their comments or concerns, or to obtain further information regarding the budget. City Administrator Whiting stated the Year 2000 Budget contains few significant changes from the previous budget. He explained that the levy increases by only $15,000, which is less than one percent, and is the maximum increase allowed by the State Legislature. He indicated that staff and the City Council have worked through the budget priorities, and are able to present a budget that balances, with a small amount remaining for contingency in the Year 2000. City Administrator Whiting stated there are no major capital improvements or significant capital purchases proposed in the upcoming budget. He indicated that one of the issues the community will face next year, in terms of the budget, relates to personnel costs. He explained that a three- c:\ADmimmiNurEs\ -22-99.Public hree-C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\11-22-99.Public Hearing.doc Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Public Hearing Meeting Page 2 health insurance premiums. He advised the actual amounts would not be known until April or May of 2000, and in the interim, there were also collective bargaining agreements to be resolved. City Administrator Whiting stated another issue related to the General Fund is the City's contribution to the Community Center. He advised that $50,000 has been budgeted for operations at the facility, as it has been in the past three years. He noted the City is now complete in terms of its expenditures for construction of the building, which pertains to a different fund, and the specific details of this could be discussed during the meeting. He indicated that the City's Finance Director would provide an overview of how the budget generally works, and how taxes are calculated and divided. Finance Director Kessel stated the City is comprised of several different funds, the main fund being the General Fund, which is financed through property taxes and pays for the costs of Administration, Streets and Street Maintenance, Police and Fire Protection, Community Development, and Parks and Recreation. Finance Director Kessel explained that the City's Special Revenue Funds dedicate sources of revenue for a specific purpose. For example the City collects a franchise fee on cable television service, and this money is directed to the Cable Television Fund that can only be utilized for cable television activities. Finance Director Kessel indicated the Economic Development Fund pertains to such matters as business loans, housing redevelopment, and the redevelopment along Highway 10. He noted the City receives a grant of approximately $25,000 from Ramsey County for its recycling program, and this money is applied toward the Highway 10 redevelopment. He stated no changes were proposed for the Economic Development Fund in the 2000 Budget. Finance Director Kessel stated the residents of the City are assessed a fee on their water bills which is dedicated to the Street Lighting and Surface Water utilities. He indicated the majority of the streetlight expense pertains to the electricity usage, and a small amount is utilized for new streetlights. He advised that a resident interested in obtaining a new streetlight on their property could achieve this through a petition and the agreement of the surrounding property owners. Finance Director Kessel stated the operation of Lakeside Park is a Joint Venture between the City of Mounds View and the city of Spring Lake Park. He explained that each city contributes $7,500 to offset the cost of lifeguards and maintaining that park. Finance Director Kessel explained there are several Debt Service Funds, which are the basically all the Tax Increment Districts. He explained that the revenue source for paying the bonds on those districts is the Tax Increment property tax. Finance Director Kessel stated the Capital Projects Fund, Municipal Aid for Streets, and the Special Projects Fund represents approximately 1.6 million dollars, and the interest on that amount is utilized to maintain the City streets. He indicated the General Fund and the Water and Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Public Hearing Meeting Page 3 Wastewater Enterprise Funds, direct monies toward the Vehicle Equipment Fund, which is utilized as a mechanism to pay for City vehicles. Finance Director Kessel indicated there are three Enterprise Funds, which include the Water and Wastewater Funds for which a charge is assessed on a quarterly basis. He stated there was also a Golf Course Fund, and the fees paid by persons using the driving range or the golf course are directed to this fund and are utilized to pay the expenses associated with the golf course. Finance Director Kessel stated there is a levy in the General Fund for Fire Improvement Bonds, which was issued in the early 1990's to construct several fire stations and pay for some capital equipment. He explained that those bonds were re-financed two years earlier, through a joint venture with the cities of Blaine and Spring Lake Park. He stated the residents pay a percentage of the bond payments, and since the bonds were issued, the percentage has gone from 25 percent to approximately 17 percent, based upon the tax capacity and the number of fire calls. He noted the City of Mounds View's share has continued to decrease on both of these. Finance Director Kessel advised that Ramsey County estimates the market value for all property within the County, and the State of Minnesota determines classifications of property and associated class rates. He indicated some of the major classifications are residential property, which include homesteaded and un-homesteaded properties, commercial and industrial properties, and apartment complexes. Finance Director Kessel advised that the three major taxing jurisdictions are Ramsey County, the School District, and the City of Mounds View. He stated there are seven additional taxing jurisdictions including the Rice Creek Watershed District, and the Library, which comprise the total amount of taxes paid by the residents of Mounds View. He explained that these taxing jurisdictions determine the property taxes that are levied, and based upon the market value, classifications, and taxes needed, the actual tax is calculated. Finance Director Kessel stated the average market value of a residential home in Mounds View in 2000 will be $105,000, which represents a $7,500 increase over the 1999 market value, or 7.7 percent. He explained that the City's levy, including the Fire Improvement Bonds, is increasing by $9,290, for an actual increase of.5 percent. He stated the preliminary tax rate, which is the tax levy divided by the tax capacity, based upon the market value, will decrease by 4.9 percent in 2000, for an average residential house. He pointed out that with the increase in market value, and the decrease in the City's tax rate, this represents an approximate $12 increase in the City's portion of the property tax, or a 4 percent increase from the previous year. Finance Director Kessel stated the general property tax in 1999 was $1,760,000, and this will increase to $1,769,000 in 2000, or approximately .5 percent. He stated the property taxes comprise approximately 46 percent of the City's General Fund revenue, franchise fees are $195,000, which is approximately five percent of the City's revenue, and license and permit fees are approximately $120,000, or three percent of the City's total revenues. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Public Hearing Meeting Page 4 Finance Director Kessel stated there are two main sources of inter-governmental revenue, which include the Homestead and the Agricultural Credit, and also Local Government Aid, which in 2000 is $1,324,000, or approximately 35 percent of the City's revenue. Finance Director Kessel indicated that other miscellaneous revenues, which include charges for such services as copy fees represents approximately $20,000, and fines and forfeitures, the majority of which come through the Police Department, are approximately $48,000. He noted there are also other revenues, such as interest and transfers from other funds. Finance Director Kessel advised that the Water and Sewer Funds pay for some of the City's administrative costs, and additionally there are some monies which come from the Vehicle and Equipment Fund, off of the cost of some of the equipment that is purchased. He indicated that for the year 1999, the total revenue of the City was $3,756,000, and the proposed Year 2000 revenue is $3,832,000, a two percent increase. Finance Director Kessel provided the Council with a graph, which further indicated the origin of the City's revenue sources. He explained that the major sources of revenue are general property taxes, at 45 percent, franchise fees, at approximately 5 percent, and intergovernmental revenue, at 35 percent. Finance Director Kessel provided an overview of the General Fund Outlays. He indicated the general government is comprised of the City Council, Administration, Central Services, Finance, and Community Development, and in the 2000, this budget decreases slightly from 1999. He stated Public Safety includes Police and Fire Protection, which increases approximately $35,000, and Streets and Highways, which increase to $452,000. Finance Director Kessel indicated that the Parks and Recreation budget increases slightly from 1999. He reiterated that the Debt Service for the Fire Bonds have continued to decrease by approximately $7,000 per year. He advised that the total 2000 Budget is $3,832,000, which is an approximate 2 percent increase over the 1999 budget. Finance Director Kessel provided the Council with a graph, which indicated there has been a $150,000 decrease in the cost of general government during the past two years, and there has been a slight increase in the area of public safety. Finance Director Kessel stated 28 percent of the City's budget is spent on general government, 43 percent on public safety, 12 percent on streets and highways, 11 percent on parks and recreation, 2 percent on debt service for the fire bonds, and 4 percent for miscellaneous expenditures. Finance Director Kessel stated the Council has requested staff consider the possibility of decreasing the street lighting charges. He explained that the 2000 Budget, as prepared, does not reflect any changes to this fee, however, a proposal to this effect will be brought forward. He indicated surface water charges, water rates, and wastewater fees are proposed to remain the same as they were in 1999. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Public Hearing Meeting Page 5 Finance Director Kessel advised that the current franchise fee of 2.5 percent of electric and natural gas charges will be directed into the General Fund to assist in offsetting some of the costs for services. He pointed out that several weeks earlier, the Council adopted an ordinance which increases the franchise fee to 4 percent, with the additional 1.5 percent going toward the Street Reconstruction Fund, and staff was additionally directed to research means to increase that percentage. He stated that prior to the Truth in Taxation Hearing on December 6, staff hopes to propose an adjustment to that amount, however, at minimum, 1.5 percent of the franchise fee will go toward the Street Reconstruction Fund. Finance Director Kessel indicated that $14,000 of the franchise fee collected on the cable service provided to residents of the City will be utilized in the 2000 Budget to continue to upgrade the Cable Television System, to provide better quality and increased programming to the citizens. Finance Director Kessel stated there are no significant changes proposed in the charges or service levels of Recycling, Street Lighting and Surface Water, with the exception of the Street Lighting rates which will probably be decreased. He added there were no proposed changes in terms of the service levels at Lakeside Park. Finance Director Kessel stated 1999 was the first complete year the YMCA managed the recreational programming at the Community Center. He advised that staff did not anticipate any changes in the General Fund contributions to the Community Center, however, there would possibly be an increase in programming. He explained that the City will continue to market the Community Center to make it self supporting, and as in the last three years, the General Fund has contributed $50,000 to assist with this goal, and this was also proposed for 2000. Finance Director Kessel stated the City's liability in terms of the Debt Service Fire Bonds is decreasing due to fewer fire-calls in Mounds View, as well as the growth in the City of Blaine and the refinancing of debt. He explained there were several years remaining to pay on those bonds, and the change in the formulas resulting in the actual amount owed is decreasing approximately $30,000 to $40,000 per year. Finance Director Kessel indicated that the City is making principal payments on the Tax Increment bonds, at approximately one million dollars a year, and the bonds will all be paid in the year 2005. He advised there is approximately 2.3 million dollars net, outstanding in Water Bonds. He pointed out that one of the bond issues was refinanced, however, the call date is not until next year, therefore, next year the City will pay off the original bonds, and continue to pay off the remaining debt until the year 2013. Finance Director Kessel stated there was $3,090,000 debt issued for the golf course in 1999. He explained that the first principal payment on this amount is due January 1,2000, and the last payment is due January 1, 2014. He explained that golf course fees will be utilized to pay all golf course expenses, and staff is currently researching a possible City loan, to be used to correct some of the construction problems at the golf course. He advised that such a loan would be repaid to the City with interest. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Public Hearing Meeting Page 6 Finance Director Kessel stated the preliminary tax rate for Mounds View residents, including City, County and School District taxes, will decrease by approximately 4 percent. He stated the City's share of the tax has slightly increased, however, when the other taxing jurisdictions are factored in, the average property taxpayer should see a decrease of approximately 4 percent in the year 2000. There was no public input. Mayor Coughlin advised the purpose of this meeting is to present the budget to the citizens, and to address any questions they may have. He suggested the Council continue to discuss the budget at this point, in terms of the golf course loan, streetlight utility rates, and others items mentioned. Finance Director Kessel stated a question was raised at the previous Council Meeting relating to the Theater Project and its impact upon the taxes of an average residence in the City. He indicated that the estimated total tax on both parcels at the Theater Project is approximately $140,000, and the City tax is approximately $17,500. He explained that with the total tax capacity and the residential tax capacity of the City, which is approximately 65 percent, and considering the values before and after the improvement of those parcels, the average residence would realize an approximate $2.50 reduction in taxes on the City side in 2000. He noted that the following year, when all of the value is factored in, that amount should increase. Council Member Quick inquired if this represented extra monies to the City's General Fund, or if this money would be distributed throughout the tax base. Finance Director Kessel stated this money would be incorporated into the tax base. He noted that residential properties represent approximately 56 percent of the tax capacity, however, this does not include apartments, or commercial or industrial properties. City Administrator Whiting stated staff has spent an extensive amount of time considering the Community Center issues. He stated it was important to note that while $50,000 is transferred from the General Fund to the Community Center to fund the expenses of operating the facility, the facility also generates revenues that are directed back into the operations. He added that the facility has been in operation for only eleven months. Finance Director Kessel stated there were four different components of the Community Center facility. He stated the Children's Home Society leases a portion of the building and it is estimated that the minimum amount they will pay in 2000 is $40,000. He indicated Community Education is anticipated to generate approximately $52,000, and the Banquet Center, factoring in the revenues from catering, liquor, and the rental of the facility, will generate approximately $90,000. Finance Director Kessel stated the City anticipates approximately $17,000 per year in revenues from the area within the gymnasium that is managed by the YMCA. He indicated the facility Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Public Hearing Meeting Page 7 periodically holds "open gyms," and charges a dollar to participate, which represents $3,500. He added that the commission on the vending machines in the facility is estimated to generate $4,500, and additionally, miscellaneous revenues of approximately $3,500 are expected. He pointed out that the facility will pay approximately $1,500 in sales tax on some of the rentals, however, with the $50,000 transfer from the City, the total revenues of the Community Center will be $261,000. Finance Director Kessel stated on the electricity, water, sewer and janitorial service costs are some of the larger expenses of the Community Center. He advised that the City has a contract for management of the Banquet Center that is commission based, and the higher the revenue, the higher the percentage will be. He indicated this would be approximately $30,000 next year. He stated that through the YMCA agreement, the City sets aside $20,000 a year for equipment replacement. He pointed out that the current budget information indicates a fund balance, however, some of this is actually Equipment Reserve, and represents approximately $9,000 of income. He noted this information would be included in the next budget presentation. He indicated that further refining is necessary, however, the Community Center appears to be fairly successful. Mayor Coughlin indicated from a business standpoint, if you can break even in the first three years of operation, you are doing well. He stated the Community Center is coming very close to that within its first year of operation, when for months they were simply attempting to iron out procedures and policies. He remarked that this is incredible. He added that this is a testament to the management skills of Finance Director Kessel, who had conducted much of the oversight on this project. He commended Finance Director Kessel for a job well done. City Administrator Whiting noted the previous discussion pertaining to possible changes in the street light utility rate, to reflect the slower activity in this area. Mayor Coughlin inquired regarding staff's earlier recommendation on this matter. Finance Director Kessel stated staff has proposed a possible 20 percent reduction in the street lighting fee. Mayor Coughlin stated there was some consensus among the Council Members in this regard, and inquired if this would be reflected in the final budget. Finance Director Kessel stated it would. Mayor Coughlin suggested the Council touch upon the City's short-term loan to the golf course. Finance Director Kessel stated staff has requested the TIF Attorney from Briggs and Morgan examine the City's TIF Districts and he has provided extensive information in terms of possible funding for the golf course, the Community Center, and other like projects. He stated that staff will prepare a resolution that will transfer some of the TIF interest earned prior to July 1, 1997 to Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Public Hearing Meeting Page 8 the Economic Development Authority so that they can be utilized for Economic Development, or other areas the Authority deems appropriate. Finance Director Kessel noted Golf Course Superintendent, John Hammerschmidt was preparing several alternative proposals to present to the Council at the December 6 Work Session. Council Member Thomason thanked Finance Director Kessel for his presentation and summary of the Year 2000 Budget. She indicated the budget for upcoming projects was fairly well resolved, and the only outstanding issues appeared to be the Street Light Fund, which was proposed to decrease by 20 percent, and the Cable Television Fund. Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the current amount of money in the TIF District Fund, and the amount projected for that fund in the next five years. Finance Director Kessel stated the interest earned prior to July 1, 1997 was in the 2.2 to 2.5 million-dollar range. He indicated that the low point in the cash flows will occur in 2003, and he was uncertain what the cash flows would be at this time. Mayor Coughlin inquired if this was not $178,000. Finance Director Kessel stated this amount was an earlier projection, and the new projections were over one million dollars. He stated that based upon the new projections, the Economic Development Authority might formulate a plan whereby they would agree to loan the funds on a short term basis, or issue a short term bond to get through the low point in the cash flow. He indicated another option was to transfer only a portion of the monies into the fund at this time. He advised there will be several options available, and these will be addressed during the discussions with the TIF Attorney. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the TIF Attorney and the Golf Course Director would attend the meeting on December 6. Finance Director Kessel stated they planned to attend. Council Member Marty requested clarification regarding the fund into which the transfer of monies would be made. Finance Director Kessel stated the Economic Development Authority, which is essentially the City Council, but a separate legal authority, manage the TIF Districts, and this fund is where the transfer of monies would occur. City Administrator Whiting stated that in June, staff presented long term trends the City sees based upon past City budgets and actual expenses. He noted the purpose of the budget is to identify expenses over a particular period in time, as each particular period is connected to the past, and will assist in predicting what occurs in the future. He stated that over the long term, the trends of concern to the City are in regard to its own ability to raise revenues to maintain itself as a viable self-governing community, and providing for its own administration. Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Public Hearing Meeting Page 9 City Administrator Whiting stated typically, the main area of difficulty for cities such as Mounds View, is the ability to fund the capital infrastructure replacement of streets, curb and gutter, sewer and water. He indicated that these are very expensive considerations that come forward from time to time, and the City could possibly do more in the area of financing its own infrastructure replacement. City Administrator Whiting stated in the past two and a half years, there have been discussions regarding the City's streets policies, and some decisions have been made recently in terms of creating a street fund. He advised that the interest earnings on the TIF Districts create an opportunity for the community to begin to re-fund its own capital replacement program. He indicated there are several means to pay for repairing the streets, which include borrowing or attempting to save, and paying for the replacement as it becomes necessary. He advised the latter option is much less costly, however, it is usually the most difficult for cities to commit to. He pointed out that progress has been made this year, in terms of committing to that ideal, and he would encourage the Council to continue in that direction. City Administrator Whiting stated several things have been done over the past two to three years to save on the costs of administrative City functions and to increase productivity. He indicated that over time, staff would attempt to find additional means to accomplish this. He stated the City would likely see significant forward movement in the coming year, in the areas of distribution of information and interaction with the residents, particularly via the Internet. He pointed out that this will assist with productivity, and also presents a fundamental change in the manner in which the City views itself as a local government unit interacting with the community, which provides for greater participation, and allows the City to be more reactive to specific residential concerns. He stated these are the trends that will be visible in Mounds View in the year 2000, and possibly beyond. Finance Director Kessel advised that the Long Term Financial Plan is required to be adopted every year by ordinance. He noted the first reading of this ordinance was listed on the City Council Agenda, and inquired if there were any questions prior to consideration of this item. Mayor Coughlin stated all of his questions had been answered prior to the meeting. Council Member Thomason suggested the Council schedule a meeting or a retreat as soon as possible, for the purpose of brainstorming to plan for the City's Year 2001 Budget. She explained that the Year 2000 Budget is basically a replication of the previous year's budget, although, on many occasions throughout the year, staff inquired regarding what the Council would like to see. She advised that this would be a good time for the Council to meet and discuss the upcoming issues, as well as their vision for the Year 2001 Budget. Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to schedule a meeting for the purpose of planning the Year 2001 Budget. He requested the Council Member's consider their personal Mounds View City Council November 22, 1999 Public Hearing Meeting Page 10 schedules, and meet with the City Administrator to schedule a meeting date, after the City Council Meeting. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 6:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recorded and transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. '7 C� PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Truth in Taxation Hearing December 6, 1999 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10,Mounds View,MN 55112 6:00 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Coughlin,Marty, Stigney, and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: Quick. 1. Presentation of the Proposed Budget for the Year 2000. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 6:02 p.m. Finance Director Kessel stated several weeks ago, staff prepared the Mounds View Matters, and included inserts relating to the City's 2000 Budget. He explained that the following presentation is an overview of that material, and is similar to the presentation provided two weeks earlier. Finance Director Kessel stated the City is comprised of several different funds, the main fund being the General Fund, which is financed through property taxes and pays for the costs of Administration, Streets and Street Maintenance, Police and Fire Protection, Community Development, and Parks and Recreation. Finance Director Kessel explained that the City's Special Revenue Funds dedicate sources of revenue for a specific expenditure, and these include the Cable Television Fund, Economic Development Fund, Recycling, Street Lighting, Surface Water and Lakeside Park Finance Director Kessel explained there are several Debt Service Funds, which relate to the Tax Increment Districts. He indicated the Capital Projects Fund, which is Municipal Aid for Streets, provides construction dollars that can be held, and are required to be utilized within five years. He explained that the Special Projects Fund represents approximately 1.4 million dollars, and the interest on that amount is utilized to maintain the City streets, and to finance the Vehicle Equipment Fund. Finance Director Kessel stated the City has three Enterprise Funds, which operate similarly to a business, in that the revenues are used to pay the expenses. He stated the Enterprise Funds include the Water Fund, Wastewater Fund and the Golf Course Fund. Finance Director Kessel stated the operations that are financed through property taxes include Mounds View City Council December 6, 1999 Truth in Taxation Hearing Page 2 the General Fund, which is utilized for Police Protection, Snow Removal, Street Maintenance, Administration, Community Development, which includes Code Enforcement, Parks and Recreation, and some assistance to the Community Center. Finance Director Kessel indicated the City has Debt Service on Fire Improvement Bonds, which were issued in the early 1990's, to construct and maintain several fire stations and pay for capital equipment. Finance Director Kessel stated Ramsey County estimates the market value for all property within the County, and the State of Minnesota determines classifications of property and associated class rates. He advised that the three major taxing jurisdictions are Ramsey County, the School District, and the City of Mounds View, and there are seven miscellaneous taxing jurisdictions. He explained that the taxing jurisdictions determine their needs, and then, based upon the total market value, a rate is determined. He indicated the average market value of a residential home in Mounds View in 2000 will be $105,000, which represents a $7,500 increase over the 1999 market value, or 7.7 percent. Finance Director Kessel explained that the City's preliminary property tax levy was 1,769,652, which is an increase of $9,290, from 1999, or .5 percent. He stated the preliminary tax rate, which is the tax levy divided by the tax capacity, based upon the market value, will decrease by 4.9 percent in 2000, for an average residential house. He pointed out that with the increase in market value, and the decrease in the City's tax rate, the average home will see an approximate $12 increase in the City's portion of the property tax, or a 4 percent increase from the previous year, which is $316.35. Finance Director Kessel stated the general property tax in 1999 was $1,760,000, and this will increase approximately .5 percent in 2000, to $1,769,000. He explained that the property taxes comprise approximately 46 percent of the City's General Fund revenue. He indicated franchise fees are $195,000, which is approximately five percent of the City's revenue, and license and permit fees are approximately$119,000, or three percent of the City's total revenues. Finance Director Kessel stated Inter-governmental revenues, which are State aids, are $1,325,000, or approximately 35 percent of the City's revenue. He indicated that other miscellaneous revenues, which include charges for such services as copy fees, represent approximately $20,000, and fines and forfeitures, the majority of which come through the Police Department, are approximately $48,000. He noted there are also Other Revenues are $141,000, and the largest item in this area is interest earnings. He stated transfers from other funds are $213,000. He stated the total City revenues are $3,832,000, which is a 2 percent increase over the previous year. Finance Director Kessel provided the Council with a graph, which further indicated the origin of the City's revenue sources. He explained that the major sources of revenue are general property taxes, at 45 percent, Franchise Fees represent approximately 5 percent, and Inter-governmental Mounds View City Council December 6, 1999 Truth in Taxation Hearing Page 3 revenues represent 35 percent of the City's revenue. He indicated that license and permit fees represent 3 percent of the revenues, and miscellaneous revenues comprise the balance. Finance Director Kessel provided an overview of the General Fund Outlays. He explained that General Government is approximately $100,090,000, which is very close to that of 1999. He stated the Public Safety budget $100,619,000, Streets and Highways will increase to $452,000, and the Parks and Recreation budget increases slightly from 1999, to $437,000. Finance Director Kessel indicated that the Debt Service for the Fire Bonds have continued to decrease by approximately $7,000 per year. He explained that those bonds were re-financed two years earlier, through a joint venture with the cities of Blaine and Spring Lake Park. He stated the residents pay a percentage of the bond payments, and since the bonds were issued, the percentage has gone from 25 percent to approximately 17 percent, based upon formulas that are the average market value of the property, and the number of fire calls. He noted the City of Mounds View's share has continued to decrease on both of these. Finance Director Kessel provided the Council with a graph which indicated the 1998 actual, 1999, and 2000 proposed budgets. He stated that most areas of the budget have remained fairly constant from 1999 to the 2000 Budget. Finance Director Kessel stated 28 percent of the City's budget is spent on General Government, 43 percent on Public Safety, 12 percent on Streets and Highways, 11 percent on Parks and Recreation, 2 percent on Debt Service for the fire bonds, and 4 percent for miscellaneous expenditures. Finance Director Kessel stated the Council has directed staff to consider the possibility of decreasing the street lighting charges. He explained that the 2000 Budget, as prepared, does not reflect any changes to this fee, however, a proposal to this effect will be brought forward. He indicated surface water charges, water rates, and wastewater fees are proposed to remain the same as they were in 1999. Finance Director Kessel advised that the current franchise fee of 2.5 percent of electric and natural gas charges will be directed into the General Fund to assist in offsetting some of the costs for services. He pointed out that several weeks earlier, the Council adopted an ordinance which increases the franchise fee to 4 percent, with the additional 1.5 percent going toward the Street Reconstruction Fund, and staff was additionally directed to research means to increase that percentage. Finance Director Kessel indicated that $14,000 of the franchise fee collected on the cable service provided to residents of the City will be utilized in the 2000 Budget to continue to upgrade the Cable Television System, and to improve the service level to the customers. Mounds View City Council December 6, 1999 Truth in Taxation Hearing Page 4 Finance Director Kessel stated there are no significant changes proposed in the charges or service levels of Recycling, and Surface Water, and no proposed changes in terms of the service levels at Lakeside Park. Finance Director Kessel stated there were no proposed changes in recreational programming service levels in 2000. He explained that the City will continue to market the Community Center, with the goal of making it self supporting within the next several years. He indicated there were no proposed changes to the Economic Development Fund from 1999. Finance Director Kessel stated the City's liability in terms of the Debt Service to the fires bonds is decreasing due to fewer fire-calls in Mounds View, as well as the growth in the City of Blaine and the refinancing of debt. He explained these were being paid for through a special levy to the property taxes. Finance Director Kessel indicated that the City is making principal payments on the Tax Increment bonds, at approximately one million dollars a year, and the bonds will all be paid in the year 2005. He advised there is approximately 2.3 million dollars net, outstanding in Water Bonds. He pointed out that one of the bond issues was refinanced in 1996, however, the call date is not until next year, therefore, next year the City will pay off the original bonds, and continue to pay off the remaining debt until the year 2013. Finance Director Kessel stated there was $3,090,000 debt issued for the golf course in 1999. He explained that the first principal payment on this amount is due January 1,2000, and the last payment is due January 1, 2014. He explained that golf course fees will be utilized to pay all golf course expenses, and staff is currently researching a possible City loan, to be used to correct some of the construction problems at the golf course. He advised that such a loan would be repaid to the City with interest. Finance Director Kessel stated the total preliminary tax rate for Mounds View residents, including City, County and School District taxes, will decrease by approximately 4 percent in the year 2000. 2. Questions from the public on the Proposed Year 2000 Budget. Mayor Coughlin requested Finance Director Kessel provide an overview of the recent adjustments to the 2000 budget. Finance Director Kessel stated the following changes were not included in the previous presentation, however, they have been discussed at previous Council Meetings. Finance Director Kessel stated the Council has discussed the addition of$5,000 to the General Fund budget for the purpose of conducting a Community Survey. He indicated at present, there is nothing in the budget for airport litigation, and staff has set aside $10,000 for this purpose. He Mounds View City Council December 6, 1999 Truth in Taxation Hearing Page 5 explained that staff was uncertain of the status of this, at this point, and if the Council has any additional insight to offer in the matter, the amount can be increased or decreased accordingly. Finance Director Kessel indicated several positions were open when the budget was prepared, and staff was not aware of what the salary ranges would be, therefore, staff included the maximum salaries for these positions in the 2000 Budget. He explained that the salary of the Assistant to the City Administrator is divided between the City Council, the Department of Elections, City Administrator and Central Services budgets. He stated since the Assistant to the City Administrator is presently at Step 2, and will not advance to Step 3 until her one-year anniversary, there is a savings of$6,600,plus $900 in benefits. Finance Director Kessel stated staff has added Y2K insurance coverage at $3,500 for year 2000, and this is in the Central Services budget. He indicated the Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector position has been filled in the Community Development Department, and that position will start at the Step 1 level. He explained that this individual will be at Step 1 for part of the year, Step 2 part of the year, and Step 3 for part of the year, and this represents a savings of $6,452, plus $880 in benefits. Finance Director Kessel stated several months ago, there was a revision to the Planning Associate salary, which will be a cost of$6,845, plus $940 in benefits. He indicated staff has received notice from the I-35W Corridor Coalition that the dues paid to them by the City will increase $1,400 next year. Finance Director Kessel stated the Police Department has made numerous changes since the hiring of the new Police Chief, however, the total budget is the same, therefore, there will be no net impact to the overall budget. He advised that the Parks Department has added a mower, at $9,500. He explained that this mower will replace an existing mower, therefore, it will be paid for through the Vehicle Equipment Fund, and the Revenue Section of the budget indicates an increase in revenues of $9,500 to pay for that. He stated there was no adjustment listed for uniforms for the Snow and Ice Control Department, and this will cost $25. Finance Director Kessel stated these changes represent a total General Fund increase of$22,378, a portion of which will be offset by the $9,500 in revenues from the Vehicle Equipment Fund, for a net cost of $12,848. He indicated the original budget had revenues over expenses of $16,000, and a contingency of$48,000. He explained that if they adjust all of these factors to the Contingency Account, there will be a revised contingency of$51,162. Finance Director Kessel stated the preliminary Cable Television Fund budget contained $30,000 for capital improvements, which were not identified. He stated these costs have since been identified, reducing the amount by$11,000. Finance Director Kessel indicated a vacancy has been filled in the Economic Development Department, and there will be a savings of approximately $8,000, and $1,090 in benefits, with this position. He pointed out there was a transfer out of the Special Projects Fund in the amount Mounds View City Council December 6, 1999 Truth in Taxation Hearing Page 6 of $100,000, which should have only been $90,000, therefore, there will be a reduction of $10,000 in this area of the budget. Finance Director Kessel explained that the Street Lighting rates will be reduced 20 percent, effective for the January through March billing cycle, and this will reduce revenues by $11,700. He indicated approximately 4%2 months of seasonal help at $8.00 an hour has been included in the budget, at $6,400, and approximately $1,080 in benefits, for a total additional outlay in the Surface Water Fund of$7,480. He stated the Wastewater Underground Inspections Department will add a flatbed dump truck, for$3,900. There was no public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 6:17 p.m. Mayor Coughlin inquired if there were any other items, budget related or otherwise, that the Council would care to discuss. Council Member Stigney inquired if all budgets shown on the pie graph were prepared to reflect the 2.5 franchise fee, or the 4 percent franchise fee that will be effective on January 1, 2000. Finance Director Kessel explained the pie graph budgets pertain to the General Fund, which is at 2.5 percent. He stated he did not prepare any of the graphs to reflect the additional 1.5 percent franchise fee, however, this percentage would not go into the General Fund, but rather into a separate fund restricted for roads and road maintenance. Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the specific nature of the additional seasonal help. Director of Public Works Ulrich explained that the purpose of this is to add more seasonal help to the work force in the summer, to assist with cleaning of catch basins, catch basin repair, storm sewer repair, and things of that nature. Mayor Coughlin inquired if this was to be paid for out of the Surface Water Fund. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this was correct. Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recorded and transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. it3• Summary of Council Administrator Retreat—December 7, 1999 Northland.Inn, Brooklyn Center Members Present: Coughlin, Thomason, Stigney, Quick, Marty, Whiting The retreat started at 5:15 p.m. and ended at 10:15 p.m. The group individually reviewed issues each felt would be important for 2000. Summarizing, the issues were listed as follows: Mayor Coughlin: • Increasing housing programs and funding • Ongoing streets and infrastructure maintenance • New development or redevelopment at the golf course to improve its cash flow • Computerization of City Hall and web site development • Faster upgrading of city parks,playground equipment and trail system • Professionally done city services and development survey • Consideration of the use of citizen juries • Consideration of pay for board and commission members, adjustment for Council Council member Thomason • • Highway 10 issues Council member Quick • Development of city trail system, sidewalks along busy streets • Improvements at the golf course • Noise barrier along new Highway 10 • Ball field improvements, particularly at Greenfield Park Council member Marty • Options for Arden Park compost site • "Big woods" development area • Improving Council communications and cohesiveness Council member Stigney • City board, commission and City Council appreciate dinner • C:\WINNT\Profiles\chuckw.000\Personal\Summary of Council Administrator Retreat, December 7, 1999.doc Created on 12/13/99 11:02 AM 7,4 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS AGAINST CITY FUNDS WHEREAS,the City of Mounds View,pursuant to Minnesota Statute 412.141, has full authority over the financial affairs of the City and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the claim numbers: 13794 through 13810 in the amount of$ 22,094.20 101687 through 101892 in the amount of$ 196,557.20_, TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED: $ 218,651.40 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 12/14/99 by the vote ayes nayes. Mayor Clerk-Administrator Date: 12/09/1999 Time: 10:50:48 Cityof Mounds View Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 1 FM Entry - Invoice - Check Register Ranges: Bank #: (A) Check Date: (A) Check #: (L) 101773, 101774, 101775, 101776 Options: Check # Sort Only: N Format: 1 # of copies: 1 Bank # Check Date Vendor # Vendor Name Check # Type Amount 1 11/23/1999 B2600 101773 V .00 11/23/1999 B2600 Bankcard Center 101774 R 4,299.74 11/23/1999 P9200 Public Employees Insurance Pro 101775 R 580.42 11/23/1999 W5270 City of White Bear Lake 101776 R 240.00 Total Regular: 5,120.16 Total Manual: .00 Total Regular & Manual: 5,120.16 Total Voided: .00 Bank Total: 5,120.16 Grand Total: 5,120.16 Date: 12/09/1999 Time: 10:45:17 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 13795 Edward Jones Money Market 50.00 50.00* Total for Chk 13795 462.00 13796 Law Enforcement Labor union dues 462.00* Total for Chk 13796 657.67 13797 Minnesota Child Supper child support for 12/02 657.67* Total for Chk 13797 13798 MINNESOTA STATE RETIRE St retirement for 12/02 432.69432.69* Total for Chk 13798 69.00 13799 NCPERS Life Insurance PERA life ins for Jan 69.00* Total for Chk 13799 488.00 13802 Twin City Federal Mort mortgage for 12/02 488.00* Total for Chk 13802 120.00 savings 12/02 13803 Western Bank g 120.00* Total for Chk 13803 13808 ICMA Retirement Trust ICMA for 12/02 payroll 4,019.674,019.67* Total for Chk 13808 13809 Public Employees Retir Defined Contribution for 9,638.849,638.84* Total for Chk 13809 l ins for 12/0 2,295.50 life/dental Sedgwick E-SNL Total for Chk 13810 2,285.50* Mileage Reimbursement-No 4823 52.50 101687 Michael Ulrich g 52.50* Total for Chk 101687 4360 366.79 101777 Able Hose & Rubber, In Wire Duct 366.79* Total for Chk 101777 Date: 12/09/1999 Time: 10:45:17 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 2 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 838.78 101778 Ace Solid Waste, Inc. Rubbish Removal-Bridges 4901 838 78* Total for Chk 101778 System service 4160 176.00 Phone S 101779 Action Systems y 176.00* Total for Chk 101779 4100 47.87 101780 Addie Lane Floral Flowers-Kennedy 47 67* Total for Chk 101780 799-2587 4823 180.73 101781 Airtouch Total for Chk 101781 180.73* 4160 78.00 101782 All City Elevator, Inc Elevator Service 78.00* Total for Chk 101782 101783 American Office Produc File Folders,Binders,Was 4160 1,566.661,566.66* Total for Chk 101783 4160 22.79 101784 AmeriPride Linen & App Towels 22.79* Total for Chk 101784 114,370.02 101785 Arnt Construction Woodcrest Park Wetland M 4650 114,370.02* Total for Chk 101785 TV Outlets-Comm.Ctr 4650 652.90 101786 Bacon's Electric 652.90* Total for Chk 101786 101787 Batteries Plus Battery 4465 67.08 Total for Chk 101787 67.08* Ceiling Hooks 4730 283.02 101788 Beisswengers 283.02* Total for Chk 101788 DARE 101789 Timothy Brennan Party-Pizza & Pop 4200 416.84 416.84* Total for Chk 101789 101790 Briggs & Morgan Gen.Tax Increment & Dev. 4650 1,037.51 Total for Chk 101790 1,037.51* 4100 73.15 101791 Brinkman Russell, Inc. Phone Charges 73.15* Total for Chk 101791 4462 21.01 101792 Bumper to Bumper Hanger/Accessory 21.01* Total for Chk 101792 4901 381.30 101793 C. N. is Believing Golf Supplies 381.30* Total for Chk 101793 4465 113.08 101794 Carlson Tractor & Equi Shaft Seal 113.08* Total for Chk 101794 Date: 12/09/1999 Time: 10:45:17 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 3 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101795 Century Rain Aid Insert Cross, Tee, Spaci 4650 72.91 Total for Chk 101795 72.91* 101796 Cintas - 748 Uniform Rental 4823 591.03 Total for Chk 101796 591.03* 101797 Lee Collins Limited Kroy Tape 4160 118.90 Total for Chk 101797 118.90* 101798 Copy Equipment, Inc. Autocad upgrade 4415 596.15 Total for Chk 101798 596.15* 101799 Corporate Presentation Video Projector,Scanner 4350 6,849.57 Total for Chk 101799 6,849.57* 101800 Cottens, Inc. Switches 4462 140.30 Total for Chk 101800 140.30* 101801 Crysteel Truck Equipme Fiberglass Service Body 4823 5,791.00 Total for Chk 101801 5,791.00* 101802 Cummins North Central, Truck Service 4823 1,049.57 Total for Chk 101802 1,049.57* 101803 Cushman Motor Company, Repair 4900 21.18 Total for Chk 101803 21.18* 101804 Cy's Uniforms Badge Wallet 4200 556.34 Total for Chk 101804 556.34* 101805 Dakota County Technica Recertification Class 4462 60.00 Total for Chk 101805 60.00* 101806 Davies Water Equipment Equipment Repair 4823 116.24 Total for Chk 101806 116.24* 101807 Dolphin Pool & Spa Pool Rope, Floats 4350 588.41 Total for Chk 101807 588.41* 101808 Doug's T V, Appliance Controller Repair 4826 62.67 Total for Chk 101808 62.67* 101809 East Bethel Heating & Permit overpayment 3.00 Total for Chk 101809 3.00* 101810 Electronic Communicati Repaired wire damaged by 4350 897.00 Total for Chk 101810 897.00* 101811 Elegant Thymes Caterin Roberts House Service Ch 4,262.14 Total for Chk 101811 4,262.14* Date: 12/09/1999 Time: 10:45:17 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 4 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101812 Fastsigns Signs 4350 601.19 Total for Chk 101812 601.19* 101813 Five D Limited Gasoline 4200 760.21 Total for Chk 101813 760.21* 101814 Focus News Notice of Public Hearing 4160 1,909.45 Total for Chk 101814 1,909.45* 101815 Four by Four Service Alignment 4462 24.00 Total for Chk 101815 24.00* 101816 Fridley, City of 7385 Pleasant View Dr. 4823 488.74 Total for Chk 101816 488.74* 101817 Generator Specialty Co Starter Repair Kit 4462 88.75 Total for Chk 101817 88.75* 101818 W. W. Grainger Respirator Hood 4360 624.41 Total for Chk 101818 624.41* 101819 Greenman Technologies Tire Pickup 4460 7.20 Total for Chk 101819 7.20* 101820 Hudson Map Street Atlas 4360 19.54 Total for Chk 101820 19.54* 101821 Ikon Office Solutions Toner 4160 128.56 Total for Chk 101821 128.56* 101822 Innovative Images Holiday Decorations 4730 247.01 Total for Chk 101822 247.01* 101823 Kath Auto Parts & Mach Parts for '97 Crown Vict 4462 284.57 Total for Chk 101823 284.57* 101824 Kath Fuel Oil Service Window Washer solvent 4462 103.78 Total for Chk 101824 103.78* 101825 Killmer Electric Co., Shrink Tube, Wire, Tape 4360 163.13 Total for Chk 101825 163.13* 101826 Knox Lumber Charges 4160 4.20 Total for Chk 101826 4.20* 101827 League of Minnesota Ci Workers' Comp. 4200 1,606.63 Total for Chk 101827 1,606.63* 101828 Lillie Suburban News Ad-Payroll/Utility Billi 4160 82.00 Total for Chk 101828 82.00* Date: 12/09/1999 Time: 10:45:18 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 5 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101829 Herbert Lundeen Diaphram Adapter 4460 58.93 Total for Chk 101829 58.93* 101830 M R Sign Signs 4475 256.52 Total for Chk 101830 256.52* 101831 M.C.P.A. Membership 4200 30.00 Total for Chk 101831 30.00* 101832 M.T.I. Distributing Co Offset Link,Muffler Kit 4900 143.19 Total for Chk 101832 143.19* 101833 MacQueen Equipment, In Lumberjack Cutter rental 4823 266.25 Total for Chk 101833 266.25* 101834 Mail Box Express Shipping to Cues 4826 73.94 Total for Chk 101834 73.94* 101835 Mailing Solutions Utility Bill mailing 4820 320.39 Total for Chk 101835 320.39* 101836 Menards Lumber 4823 274.65 Total for Chk 101836 274.65* 101837 Metro East Development Annual Membership 4650 500.00 Total for Chk 101837 500.00* 101838 Metro Legal Services, Del. to S.Riggs 4650 42.00 Total for Chk 101838 42.00* 101839 Metrocall State Display Service 4417 59.97 Total for Chk 101839 59.97* 101840 Midwest Radiator, Inc. Heater 4462 18.90 Total for Chk 101840 18.90* 101841 Midwest Specialty Sale Choke Control 4360 8.38 Total for Chk 101841 8.38* 101842 Miller Tree & Landscap Tree Removal 4380 1,448.00 Total for Chk 101842 1,448.00* 101843 Miltona Turf Products Repair Tool 4901 302.89 Total for Chk 101843 302.89* 101844 Minn Blue Digital-A Locker-Shower Prints 4650 958.72 Total for Chk 101844 958.72* 101845 Minnegasco 8290 Coral Sea St. 4901 49.85 Total for Chk 101845 49.85* Date: 12/09/1999 Time: 10:45:18 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 6 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101846 Minnesota Petroleum Se Hose 4460 39.94 Total for Chk 101846 39.94* 101847 Minnesota Rural Water Conference Registration 4823 200.00 Total for Chk 101847 200.00* 101848 Minnesota Safety Counc Membership Dues 4826 205.00 Total for Chk 101848 205.00* 101849 Mooney & Associates Repair Parts 4823 30.56 Total for Chk 101849 30.56* 101850 N.E.P. Corporation Hex Nuts, Lag Shields, S 4462 1,592.13 Total for Chk 101850 1,592.13* 101851 Nilam Patel Deposit refund 50.00 Total for Chk 101851 50.00* 101852 North Country Ford '98 Crown Victoria repai 4462 165.97 Total for Chk 101852 165.97* 101853 North Metro I-35W Corr Annual Membership 4180 5,868.00 Total for Chk 101853 5,868.00* 101854 North Metro Mayors Ass Annual Membership 4650 6,390.00 Total for Chk 101854 6,390.00* 101855 Northern Sanitary Supp Blue Cleaner 4823 167.26 Total for Chk 101855 167.26* 101856 Northern States Power 2815 Ardan-Warming House 4360 2,146.75 Total for Chk 101856 2,146.75* 101857 Northwest Family YMCA Gym Usage-Calvin Academy 4730 162.50 Total for Chk 101857 162.50* 101858 Northwest Family YMCA Wages for Playground Ass 4350 5,527.06 Total for Chk 101858 5,527.06* 101859 Office Depot Organizer 4130 191.69 Total for Chk 101859 191.69* 101860 Orkin Exterminating Co Exterminating 4160 88.29 Total for Chk 101860 88.29* 101861 Pace Analytical Well Testing 4825 77.00 Total for Chk 101861 77.00* 101862 Matt Parrott & Sons Co Laser W2s 4150 174.39 Total for Chk 101862 174.39* Date: 12/09/1999 Time: 10:45:18 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 7 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 101863 Plaisted Companies, In Topdressing Sand 4900 326.91 Total for Chk 101863 326.91* 101864 Ram Hydraulics Parker Seal Kit 4465 32.95 Total for Chk 101864 32.95* 101865 Ramsey County Filing Fees-Sept. 48.54 Total for Chk 101865 48.54* 101866 Roberts Beverage Servi Beverage Service 249.20 Total for Chk 101866 249.20* 101867 Sandd Excavating Street opening deposit 500.00 Total for Chk 101867 500.00* 101868 Savin Corporation Staple Cartridge 4160 154.70 Total for Chk 101868 154.70* 101869 Schwaab, Inc. Hand Stamp 4160 36.32 Total for Chk 101869 36.32* 101870 Security USA, Inc. Security 300.00 Total for Chk 101870 300.00* 101871 Serco Labs Water Quality Report 4825 6,125.00 Total for Chk 101871 6,125.00* 101872 Short-Elliott & Hendri Edgewood Drive realignme 4470 5,236.12 Total for Chk 101872 5,236.12* 101873 Spring Lake Park Lumbe Lumber 4360 83.77 Total for Chk 101873 83.77* 101874 St. Paul Pioneer Press Classified Ad 4160 154.21 Total for Chk 101874 154.21* 101875 St. Paul Pioneer Press Subscription 4901 93.47 Total for Chk 101875 93.47* 101876 City of St. Paul Asphalt 4470 687.97 Total for Chk 101876 687.97* 101877 Sun Newspapers Ad-Payroll Clerk 4160 149.60 Total for Chk 101877 149.60* 101878 Time Saver Planning Comm. Mtg.-11/1 4180 677.00 Total for Chk 101878 677.00* 101879 Patrick Toth Expense Reimbursement 4350 239.03 Total for Chk 101879 239.03* Date: 12/09/1999 Time: 10:45:18 Operator: Marge Norquist Page: 8 City of Mounds View FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description All Amount 460.00 101880 Traffix Graphix Truck Lettering 4460 460.00* Total for Chk 101880 200.00 101881 U. S. Postal Service Bulk Mail Permit 4820 200.00* Total for Chk 101881 101882 U. S. Tire & Exhaust Exhaust Pipe, Muffler, T 4462 72.4372 43* Total for Chk 101882 41.00 101883 U. S. West Communicati 784-1305 436041.00* Total for Chk 101883 580 4823 819.95 E07-1 101884 U. S. West Total for Chk 101884 819.95* 101685 UAP Midwest Daconil Weatherstik, For 4900 662.40 Total for Chk 101885 662.40* Push Button Flashlight 4360 24.88 101886 Viking Electric 24 88* Total for Chk 101886 197.03 101887 Viking Safety Products Survey Marker Flags 4825 197.03* Total for Chk 101887 79.05 101888 Walters Recycling & Re Rubbish Pickup 4350 79.05* Total for Chk 101888 4823 24.00 101889 Warning Lites of Minne Seminar-Pittman 24.00* Total for Chk 101889 1,196.74 101890 Warning Systems, Inc. Lenses-Clear,Red,Blue 4200 1,196.74* Total for Chk 101890 30.00 101891 Phillipina Wesen Meter Refund 30.00* Total for Chk 101891 Savings Bonds-Parizek,Ac 4420 100.00 101892 Western Bank g 100.00* Total for Chk 101892 Grand Total 214,790.57* Item No. 7I3 Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda;CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Barb Benesch Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL Meeting Date: December 27, 1999 Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will expire on December 30, 2000. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of insurance. Licenses are noted with a "New" or "RenewThose r have not been ned as "new" include all applicants that have never been licensed with the City or licensed within the past two years. Those defined as "renewal" were licensed last year. HVAC Riccar Heating &Air Conditioning—Renewal Home Energy Center—Renewal Sign Signcrafters -New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. MMINININIIIIMIMMEI.111.11.1..Imm...m.......m.--, 7o RESOLUTION NO. 5404 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PERSONNEL POLICIES MANUAL WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Personnel Policies Manual has been under revision since 1997; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is in need of a set of well-defined policies which will serve as a source of general information for new hires and current employees; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has received input on the proposed personnel policies from City employees and the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the City of Mounds View Personnel Policies Manual. Adopted this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Item XX--Reso 5404 Approving the Personnel Policies Manual(Givonna Reed).doc 7E RESOLUTION NO. 5403 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DATA PRACTICES PROCEDURES WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View receives numerous requests annually for information covered by Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is committed to responsibly and lawfully sharing information with the public; and WHEREAS, there is a need to track information that is disseminated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the City of Mounds View Data Practices Procedures. Adopted this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Item XX--Reso 5403 Approving Data Practices Procedures (Givonna Reed).doc / F RESOLUTION NO. 5402 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE REAPPOINTMENT OF DONN WISKI AS CHAIR OF THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, Donn Wiski has served as the Transportation Advisory Board chair for the past three and one-half years; and WHEREAS, Chair Wiski has served on the Transportation Advisory Board for six years; and WHEREAS, Chair Wiski's professional background includes 25 years in transportation planning; and WHEREAS, Chair Wiski was planning director for the City of Duluth; and WHEREAS, Chair Wiski has experience in local government including terms as mayor and council member in Roseville; and WHEREAS, Chair Wiski is working very effectively with the Metropolitan Council as it strives to meet the goals outlined in the Regional Blueprint; and WHEREAS, under his leadership, Chair Wiski has worked to include representatives of all modes of transportation on the Transportation Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, Chair Wiski has supported and strengthened the comprehensive, continuing, and cooperative transportation planning process in the Metropolitan Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View supports the reappointment of Donn Wiski as Transportation Advisory Board Chairperson. December 13, 1999 Mayor Dan Coughlin ATTEST: Charles Whiting, City Clerk Item No. 7 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: December 13, 1999 Type of Business: Council Business WK.• Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda;CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Tracy )uell, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department Item Title/Subject: Awarding of bid for the Electronic Message Board Date of Report: December 7, 1999 Staff was directed to rebid the electronic message board. The following bids were received and opened on December 3, 1999: Aim Electronics $40,741.00 Attracta Sign Inc. $44, 941.00 In the 1999 budget, $40,000.00 was budgeted to replace the sign, Staff's recommendation is to award the bid to Aim Electronics in the amount of$40,741.00. Staff spoke with the Finance Director regarding any alternative or funding sources. At a previous council meeting regarding this project, contingency funds were designated to fund the remaining balance of the project. Please Note: The electronic message board will be installed and operational by Janaury 31, 2000 and the software to operate the messaging will be installed on the network file server. (In- house software training shall also be performed within 48 hours of installation of message board.) Tracy Juell,Administrative Assistant,Public Works Dept. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Aim Electronics be awarded the bid in the amount of$40,741.00 for a two line electronic message board. (This bid price includes all materials, time/temperature sensor, removal/disposal of existing sign, freight, all labor and sales tax.) Item No. /o ,4 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: December 13, 1999 Type of Business: PH& CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5387, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for Sunrise United Methodist Church, Located at 7687 Long Lake Road. Date of Report: December 8, 1999 Background: The applicant, Vanman Companies, representing the property owner, Sunrise United Methodist Church, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and development review to allow for the expansion of their Church facility located at 7687 Long Lake Road. The Church has been located at this site since 1957, having previously met in temporary space at Sunnyside Elementary in New Brighton. The Church was damaged beyond repair in 1965 after a tornado struck the area and was completely rebuilt the next year. Sunrise provides day care services for about 45 children, a service they have been providing since 1981. The expansion of the existing 13,000 square-foot facility will add approximately 7,500 square feet of area,to be utilized as additional office space, a kitchen area, multi-purpose space and an expanded Sunday school area. The worship area will also be expanded and reoriented to accommodate more seating, increasing capacity from the existing 275 to the proposed 368. The Planning Commission, at their meeting on December 1, 1999, approved Resolution 598-99 (attached for your reference)which recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit and development review. CUP Discussion: Sunrise United Methodist Church has been serving Mounds View and the surrounding communities for 45 years, the last 42 at its present location on Long Lake Road and County Road I. The existence of the Church predates the first zoning code, and predates the requirement for Churches to be conditionally permitted in residential districts. Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code addresses conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district. Subdivision 1 of this Section addresses the specific CUP requirements for Churches, which are as follows, listed with responses relating to the present Sunrise facility and proposed expansion: Sunrise Staff Report December 8, 1999 Page 2 a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum of thirty-five feet(35). The existing front yard setbacks for the Church are 90 feet along Long Lake Road and 47 feet along County Road I. The existing building meets this requirement, and with the sanctuary expansion, the setback along Long Lake decreases to 75 feet, yet still beyond that which is required. b. Side yards shall be no less than thirty feet(30). The sideyard building setbacks for the Church exceed 100 feet. There is a small single- story wood frame home on the Church site that serves as the parsonage (where the Pastor lives)which is set back 20 feet from the side property line. Staff and the Planning Commission has interpreted the setback requirement to pertain to the Church itself, viewing the parsonage as an accessory building. This requirement then is met, before and after the expansion c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) The property the Church and its accessory structures occupies comprises 6.4 acres, of which nearly three acres is preserved as natural wetlands and upland woods. This requirement is met. d Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. With the exception of the expansion of the sanctuary, all of the development will occur away from either Long Lake Road or County Road I. The wetlands and uplands provide an expansive buffer to the south, while the parsonage and other accessory buildings and uses provide a sufficient buffer to the east. There is adequate landscaping on the site at present which also adds to the screening and aesthetic appearance of the Church and grounds. e. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. At present, the seating capacity of the sanctuary is approximately 275, which translates into the need to provide 69 parking stalls, utilizing a ratio of one stall per every four seats, or fraction thereof. The existing parking lot has 98 stalls and meets the minimum requirements for the sanctuary. The ADA requirements however dictate that there should be a minimum of three handicapped stalls provided, at least one of which should be van- accessible. Only two handicapped stalls are indicated on the plan. Sunrise Staff Report December 8, 1999 Page 3 With the expansion and reorientation of the sanctuary, the capacity will increase to 368 seats. Using the same 1:4 ratio, a total of 92 stalls would need to be provided. Because the available parking exceeds 92 stalls, there would be sufficient room for the expansion without the need to expand the parking lot. Two more handicapped stalls would need to be added to comply with the expanded number of required spaces according to the ADA guidelines. f Adequate off street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. This requirement does not apply to the Sunrise Church facility. g. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) Refer to Page 5 of this report regarding the adverse affects criteria. General CUP Requirements: Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b outlines the general conditional use permit requirements that must be satisfied in order for a approval to be granted. These requirements with responses are as follows: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. The Church itself functions well at this location without any negative impacts to the surrounding community. Staff is not aware of any complaints associated with this facility. The expansion of this facility would not pose an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which 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 The Church property is bordered on three sides by public streets--Long Lake Road to the west, County Road Ito the north and Bronson Drive to the south. To the east, the Church abuts both medium and high density residential properties. These properties are at least one hundred feet away at their nearest point and as far away as 500 feet from the Church. The magnitude of the separation, in staff's opinion, is of a sufficient distance so as to not have any depreciatory effect on the residential properties. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Sunrise Staff Report December 8, 1999 Page 4 The existing Church, given its separation from other uses, fits well in this area and is aesthetically pleasing. As evidence of this, the Church and the architect who designed it received an award in 1967 for architectural excellence from the Minnesota Society of Architects. The expansion will match the appearance and design of the existing structure and will add to the overall appearance of the community. (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 fact that the Church has existed in this location for 42 years with a consistent and growing congregation is proof alone that the use satisfies a community need. Its expansion is a direct result of the Church's growing congregation and its desire to be more responsive to its membership. (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. Churches and other institutional uses are conditionally permitted within the R-1, Single- family residential district. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan (both the existing and proposed plan) designates this area as Institutional, appropriate for this type of use. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Staff is unaware of any congestion problems on Long Lake Road as a result of the Church's services. The additional traffic generated by the expansion would not add any significant volume to Long Lake Road, a Ramsey County four lane collector roadway, a street designed to accommodate higher volumes of traffic. Also, the times during which the Church would have its greatest impact upon the street is also a period of relatively low traffic counts. Given these facts, it is not anticipated that use will not 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 or its expansion. Sunrise Staff Report December 8, 1999 Page 5 Adverse Affects Criteria: Section 1125.01, Subd. le requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider possible adverse affects of the proposed use, or in this case, the existing use and expansion thereof. The following is the list of factors to be considered, along with a narrative response: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. Staff feels that the impacts of this proposed use are minimal, considering its 42-year history of operation without incident or complaint. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as Institutional. It is bounded by public streets on three sides, medium and high density residential on its fourth side, properties which are separated by the Church's accessory buildings and uses as well as extensive wetlands and wooded uplands. It is improbable that the expansion of the Church would have any depreciatory effect on these abutting properties. The need for the Church is clearly demonstrated from its continued presence at this location. Staff feels that the all of the specific conditional use permit requirements, all of the general conditional use permit requirements and the adverse affects criteria are satisfied and that the expansion of this use would be an overall benefit to the Church, its congregation, and the community in general. Development Review Discussion: Dimensional Requirements: Required Proposed Met? Lot Area 1 acre 6.4 acres Met Front Setback(Long Lake) 35 feet 6 feet Met Front Setback(County Rd. I) 35 feet 35 feet Met Sideyard Setbacks 30 feet 105 feet Met Parking lot Setback(east) 30 feet 60 feet Met Parking lot Setback(west) 5 feet 2 feet No' Parking lot Setback (north) 5 feet 80 feet Met Parking lot Setback(south) 5 feet 400+feet Met Parking stalls (1:4): 92 stalls 98 stalls Met 1The parking lot adjacent to Long Lake Road was constructed only two feet from the property line. Because no plans are being made to repave the parking lot,staff recommends that this be treated as a non- conformity to be corrected if possible at some point in the future, as allowed in Section 1104.01, Subd. 4c(4). Sunrise Staff Report December 8, 1999 Page 6 The expansion areas will be of brick construction and will match the exterior of the existing building. The total area of the expansion planned is 7,477 square feet for a total build out area of 20,464 after project completion. There will be a new covered entryway that connects to a new drop-off point adjacent to the parking lot, an expansion and reorientation of the sanctuary to increase seating capacity to 368 from the existing 275. There will be an expansion to accommodate additional space for Sunday school services. A kitchen area will be added along with some multi-purpose space, conference rooms, and office space for the Pastor and Church staff. There will not be an increase in services provided by the facility other than being able to accommodate more members in the sanctuary at a single service, thus the additional number of parking stalls required by this expansion will be limited to the increased seating capacity of the sanctuary. Wetland Buffer: The construction and expansion activities on the site will not encroach into the 100-foot wetland buffer, thus no permits of that sort are necessary. Landscaping: While there are no explicit plans showing proposed landscaping, the Church does plan on replacing the landscaping that would be removed with similar materials. Because the extent of the expansion is minimal considering the total lot area, and because there is already extensive landscaping provided that would remain after the expansion, staff is not requiring the applicant to submit anything formal in this regard. Other Site Conditions: Neither the parking lot nor the existing lighting will be altered with this proposal. No changes are being proposed with regard to signage of other site conditions. Access: The Church takes sole access from Long Lake Road, with two entry points more than 200 feet from the intersection of County Road I and Long Lake Road. No changes are proposed at this time to the parking lot or curb cuts. Recommendation: Given that the general and specific conditional use permit requirements are met, that the adverse effects criteria are adequately addressed and that the dimensional requirements are met and satisfied, save for the non-conforming parking lot setback, Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Resolution 5387, a resolution approving the CUP and Development Review request of Sunrise United Methodist Church, as presented by Vanman Companies. Jos ,, ElQiU(A641 James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\574-99\SUNRISE.CC2 'Cllr ''° Jli DI' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION `''�''n' 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 • .,8�=,-Partner°*ie' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant Vanman Companies Architects and Bids Inc.Telephone 612-541-9552 Address 9211 Plymouth Avenue Fax 612-541-9857 • Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Interest in Property(check appropriate box) O Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner - ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase Other(explain) Architect/General Contractor 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 Corner of Round Lake Road and County Road I Legal Description See attached '7 eeg 7 L0').%5 (i Property Identification#(PIN#) C%�3 C d"3 -a-t=1.0 O #of Acres 6.3527 Current Zoning R1 V Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* V ❑ Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 44 Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 O Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 • Develop Review/Site Plan • $125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit . V R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 O Floodplain Permit $200 - $125 x 3.5 acres = 0 Other FEE CALCULATION:' $437 C.U.P 75 Total: *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 ager consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant 0 Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment gc ' Other(explain) Church • • Property Classification ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens Description of Proposal Request permission to add office sBace and ciass-rorins to nrldLtnn to r-1,..- ' .. _ .. - ..._ .. • •• -- — ' _ Y.— •I. . —.' — — . —emm. ' s Of develQp nevi Pw/si"te p1 an fePG fuer t1,r1fiP'pnri-i nnR of them prap01-1-y that are BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PRO ED IS TRUE AND CCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Carey Lyons—) Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) Sunrise United Methodist Church Address of Owner 7687 Long Lake Road Mounds View, MN 55112 Phone Number of Owner 786-4926 ************************************************************************************************ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal /1 ' A -9 7 Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 7L - 9 ok L CLp)60-day Limit 120-day limit 5. 75— 61, C p1z> Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt# • Application: ,S"/ 'AD JD 11344.6 L/ 5 7 av 3 to Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORIv1S\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 ��..... ..... -1 cv N _, ' - •1 F ! N ::: N t 7866 7867 7870 7869 �858 I — . .. p`"N l"N N` 99 7853 7878 7875 786: 7869 7860 72 785 7851 7860 7865 I 7852 Y 7841 7870 Z 78611785 p� 7857 7850 �.� 7842 7841 7850 7855 7846 g 7836 3 1 7845 7840 7t 7830 0 7840 7835 7840 7829 g 7847;7840 _ O------w -- ------- 7820 n 7837 7830 w 7E p 7815 7817 . p 7833 7832 --- > 782• 7815 7790 78007814 7620:77.4S–. 20 1 781• 0 7805 7780 7849 7806 7815;781 7827 7820�__�� 7809 7770 3 7801 7760 7797 7800 78780• 78 ,r T' 7800 �- Z 7787 7778 1 775• 7 `,::•` 7801 7764 W 7751 7750 7777 ._ .. 77491 ;: �,�N 7767 7760 g.7741 7740 7767 7768 7739' 77510.: �,�i� 7761 7750 7731 7730 . 7753 [n48 7729€17730 7741 7740 P R 3 7755 7730 7721, 7720 7728 77191772• Q 7731 7730 �eyh 7745r77y 7711 7710 7709 771•p 7721 7720 7 ey - -- n a10 ii, ----N �. 9 tb o 00 0012 2 O I o o` 7701 7700 `~ 7715 N i N 'n in 7700 N a a a N; 770 - , R-2 c ` R-2 Co I:— • r, )a:to fgra)r.co 0Iaa. 2 °3 i M . C �.� s i.i.ro<o aaaaa 2553 a y u) 4. •r '4 4 ••1 V : d a a a:aOaO 7695 N P-si-' N N N N N N A NNNN M NNNNN 2551 N 2549;p 7687 8 2547,-.1 Vc 5 R_ 1766e R— .. 7B-3 o B-4 2541 ` S it0Rcli _ 66;' ;Win 7 �• rE2539 2537 766,5 1 • 71 76351 . 276 a,0 ti:' •M 7655 1 762 0 T 4) —4 7645 4 '° 74 'R-2 OM OE - '1 • ,0 7. N '� fa v B-3 N �. 0 N 7: 2 N N III !� • ..Gj1 ry�ti N N v N 7 Via;,; e� r � to M 7: 1---e...i ,,N N''C'' N ^ , N N 7 J Ni" /N� ' ON ,4' ••• 171 00°N- N it N •/S/ a2 N CITY HALL 'N 4:4 co N N O t0 i ) 0 c0~N N -"'N In-Qa a / ON , N"' N R--' /frO co to 0 0 ' co co N N O i PUD Zoning Map Planning Case 574-99 Applicant: Sunrise Church CUP Request N4 Location: 7687 Long Lake Road City of Mounds View Location Map Nsixq-1... 1 i m� i i■u I 11111:1:11111: u I i ■���� ■ ‘94 4. ZZ �'L ��■I' ' - - 1111111 �' �*e-1-70 .:, Com :: •_ _ 111 ` �� — _us _ _ 11111// MS �._ _ _ 1111♦ ..... hi iii*,,,,,,„4110,1 ' . Sunrise Church \T► ; . t 1 yy` . .£ ,..33.5 �■ I _ illit .•t sod;•:< ' ,' _• „z ,:z,,, ,,,, .s.. 4411 ,• . 4111' 1.,...,.., lii - `• .► i I. __ .6 - i • —11rwlAbl __ _ am - I r 1111110111/0 :tC - 0 wale: Iuw4 ' ,,�;NM = IMI 1 .., sill ,, ' Sunrise United Methodist Church _ _,_, 7687 Long Lake Road law.:4-:mitliams-'E-Lir.=---�mm,► — Conditional Use Permit/Development Review ;,���iu °""" '°� Planning Case No. 574-99 and 575-99 IIII IIIIIIIINEMM ll, !lair .�:i i-__ = - „,mm muumu ' �- '� /i�Q`� Iii�= �i Nig 17ilnnnn:muuuumn lig =.m=r.=.i,p=7m.Q1i.--..-.r5Ear.-..e5iFm:..l-:;1:R: ' hIAfi.ra4 ,; _ _ 7687 Long Lake Road . �Se+a�i: — �C=En6 ..,„.., ►•i+,e >• VFM0M1111111111 ;_ I,uuunuc Properties Within 350' C=C= -=� dIIIWIG”� 11 -1STE ►�YIIiIPI� ,l �'il et.011111111111M -: � I Q-1•11 E . I imp 'liA _mm maim r PAU )-1-1).. .) =ilei ,.1111_ No • !..: ....:-.'•).••';s.••:':.':. ::;*'I', ...";";:.:••• :: :::iiii: .'.•',.'"ii.:i•J'..,:••,. \, ..____........„..._.,_........e) .•:iiiii.i::'i:iii::.:.:.•......... .: . .. • i::::.: ••••••;!•.,•:'.7..•••:::•::.' ;:':-...-... »......•••,• ':::::::::::i::::::: ::::•::iiii:iiii:iiiiiii:i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii::::::iiiiii.i:::::: :::: :::i::iii::iiiili;:iii :ii:iiiiiiili::i:i*:.;;::"....:,..i.:.:,:::;.::::•'•::',.Y..:::.41:-.V.:11;:t;',..::•:': . ::::::iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:i%:.:::i :iiiiiii.iiiiiiii:::iiiiMiiiiiiiii:• iiJ:Mlii::Mi:::::iii!:: :iili::iMii 4:,;:•,,u.1.-.::Se,::.'i.::'i,:l*::;:.:::,,:.. .,:f ::::: ::•:•:•:••• •:•:. •:•:•:•:•:i—,:•%,,••••,'•'.....,..:.::,-,••••:•L.*:*:-,. ,.., ;ii:4 : . : . ::*: : i:ii :i:ii: i:i:i:i*i:i:1:i:i:i:i.:::i:i:::i, -.?ti.,....,.:-.,,,•y,n...,.•!. ::::::::: :iiiii•iiiiiiiik:IY:WG--.i-OiaNT:li:VNW:liiiii,iiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiii':iiiiii:i*i:::::•i:i:iiiii:ii:iii':ii:i:ii:i::*i: ,....,r,i. ::....:••,1..,..7..:,.....y..!.....,. :: ii:;ii:: .'ii::i:iiiiig:: ::iili.iiIii:•; ::i:•.iiiiiiii•iiiiiiiiiii::: iiii:: :::::: ::::ii::iiiiii::iliiiiiiiii::.:i.ii:: ii•Jii.ii:::: iMi:: ::ii.:::.ii::.:••,,...f,!•:•••..::-:'.1:•;:f...:'..::,....,:•......., .• :::::::.:.:::::: :::....i:i :i: ::: ii::::::::.i:::::•:::::::::::•:•:.:.:.•i•:•::.:.:.:.::::::::::•:•:•:•:,:::::::::•.•.•:•:•: ,•.• • .. ..J., ..........,,..4..,.....,, . , '"' • ' - 0 0 :::;:::::::::•::::x::::: :::::::::::::::::• 6 0 1.*'.'......:4:'.::,Si.f.:'Y..:'• : ••r t.',t li:...;•..1. ...• ......."V -••P?: .:•-:•.'1::* -- -••••:4::;';4 - 4" -...--" .."....1.,"..;ii:.':.:,'...i. . 11 1 ....••... '''''''. ?•'• ;.;?:!..._.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::.:.:::::.....................:.:.:.:.:.:.:....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::1:.:........\ ....t ici SI - ore; I l• I '-.:.; ..V r_ .3.1.; ::::::::i ...- ) ,'io i 4 ..41 49 -..,.:1 :".1:,:.•...:i I i;. ,:•••..1•;,.:1..,* ::::::::•::::::::::A .. AI&kil,:.:1,, 0 It I :'..•:".; :,..: I. iii :,.Z...........:.:.:**:::::::::..........:.:.:.:......:.: .......'7:::*?'''::::::::.*::i.::... 4 -1g..4,11,or,"--. : / •:.....,..-1.1......f....;. -...........• • ......... ••••••••• •••••........ .... •••',0.141:.• 1 ! • • • •'... ,r.:.::.•,o--' , 0 1 ?..:•-.:::::.1:..•.?•:..1..•.•.::.1,•::.. -: •,,e..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...................:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.•:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:1:.:.:• .•,,,*;4:4,,.. 4 1 i 0 ' % • ... . 0, 1 r,---1 a . 1 1 0 i .:........ .• ...,:,•:,.. • -.;'.:-.,1:13..i.,...• . . ;. ••I.."9°, R ' :. $ . • ,.-:,• . 7:::::.::••••••••• • • rt.*001Mirt ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::.-.:Aritir" I I :•.-: ..•; 71..•;," . , G 1 !.••--:-..:•p-Pr:.'.• ejr, E ••••:t 1.....y...4.: ,p,-$1-yir :•::::.:•:•:•:•::::-::::•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:.:.::.:.:•:.:•:•:.:.:•:•:;- •$01411:: ED • -:*:.......i.'.,=;',U0'.:' 1,,k, •••••••••:::::::•••••••••••••••••••••••••••-•••••••••••••••ity, ..i.eirASINIP r5I .4 .1.,, ......,iii,....,\ •• •••• ..:..0••••:.... ..01,„,,,,,wr::. ........„....:•:•.............t....,::::::::-...........,..t, M,IP:',-:.01411-....1104.4a,. - I C'•;::;.:::4:1'757.::.1.: i 0 ....-----......••••••••••-•-: - ,4"110,,,w0014::Atie,r,;,•• . \\4.14.%V 7:::::::::::::::::::::•,,":::::::::•::. :::. W•4!,k 1 elle lat ifin pig mmongonolommligemoNs, 1 .'" ? 1%7;).•4' . '\ i ••••••••::::::::::•7.7:•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••:7* MO"qi 1611•;MMOPYN RgAMPA \G)\le\t\\, a ..••..••...•.•..••...•.•..::.••...••.....••...:.H••••.:::::::::::::::•:•:••:••:•:••.••K•*•7-?1•!.••.••::::::.::::::::'. :g':i*H.:,••-,<•••-'.-;,L.i;•.i..,1iiiTir„i,i,.,.imP.•q.r:.':.*•,,,PA,.H. W4te1i1M0ll0ibkli1n0Ata'dli.l!i;4 \\ 101 kiA.Amtiehgsillil!l!i, •!! .-„•,••••••,••••.,,,.,„. '',...Z e.:.N.•1.:::^1 . . 1 N...............::::::::.:.::-...„,..,,,,,,,,0*.•...-................-......, ., .. \it, ,,,,, .......... t................... .... ........ . ... .. 1 1 .:-....•=1,..4.3.::(::3;,.: NAN ...... • ......:::1::::::::::::::::::::F::11---------AU-----77--y-:-.:1 ---- '..! i I !::".*•;i.'•••;.'...i...'..•••••; ' . 1\\ 1 •••••••••••••••••••••:::::::::::::::%::-:-::*:::..4:::•::::1-...:•:::::::::::::::;::::::::;;11.............•..-....•••••• ,,,,,... •' I- i • 1 ••• •••••....:1:::::,.....1::::, \\\„\\®\0 ..•••.•.• •••••• •••••••• ! 1 '............:...:,Z 0`.•Y: .:•':: :.; ....,1 \\•,-,:q.„ \\.4\:,..,ii11-110.. . 0., :,,,, 11111 u, iliv • of% . ! 6 1 ,.....::•:...,,:....p::::...... ... ...7,11 40 1 li 3 ."•:t.Vt'. '':,.!:v., il nil -•,;, 1:,,...1.. 1 .-.....1/•:::. ...:. •,... .--. \\,\\ ii , . ;;.... :•:•.. i - • sis • i • i \ \\-• -\.:i . , IA I: • 1 . ! 1 0 ' ..!..:..,•...., .:: \,\ ....., ---- ..w \ \\\I - -- , ., :.,..:.el'. 4 • \ I El ..''..";::••••••:.•:::.••...•i i K K CD all 0 • 34 • ...:,.......,.- v-:;:..... „.... \\:\. \\1., Li- --1 Z x m 1 m \\\ \ \- '' 13 • Bor.lrefZe il \ ti 4 Dm 0 4** • a L._ t,1 .....--- x — rq ])'• I 1111111 ill ! o i iiiii 1111 1 1 1 GN i 1 M c a lit- cD i! . DJ $iciz c-J ,...-;•.:7:a 1 < c: 0, ! , --m ill !!! ! 0, E- 1 ' 111111' 1 HI! = ,•-•-• , 3 I tO ,',""ln.h - 1 i i :- co I 1111111111 I IgHi 1 I . •• f:=11 :=,--•` <73 1-7.7:;.=1 N I --- 111 i "l'eliv /UN C.0 ---, 11111103 II/ Z 3 i .3'1 I CO !I-11;3 1 i I i .. ., -....._.._._......_..--- , • •�":',•:.:?.-;.',1‘17.11:f:,, ,!,..,T) :ar'^rY R:.__. ,t•om:a•b. nA„n••1�:,. .• -: r'y'Y.a .:" •C: •.:h'`r1� v:;J. ij_•ei (t y •'l v:.,•?.,, Fitr.iK i�• .'e. .yt,�>Iz � � m (n ',1•i'::}r;.•;r-Y�ry,. tee=:,'". ..t:,i.� .� ara<r.p••�":. :.;y:_:, �,^,�:.a: :. C ':. 1;',:• x. ;'r: �'', `•'�.w^' :t•.":" ••�' ie:.:•nti ,..':....:=...�;:t�• r�i� :.. '''' �.i:+'' 'i dr —� ..n ..a.�:•�''4::.,.x '.: , ..."'. :^ :.:s•'yh=-"`..x.'.�. e�9• i'' .. t4' • �'. .. cl z Z —iii K ==' :`(�^ . : .. ...'.`�,.�..::., ��.. .,.:.�....'�...: .,�,�.: ,gi n r- •::.... .• :i..:.::it — 5cc, z ! i W Z :ti1•Y{?i I ! i ,-.T.-'-=',.. I "f,: CI XI ..,_ r,„:,,,,, ::::::::,,,,:,:,„ .. „, _ ,:::::::::::,:,::::::::::,:::::::,,:::::,:,:,:,:,:,:,:::, , 01 fA :r:: ra •�=i .-.,.•_fit. 1 i isi}: r}i};iiiry "'ti :.....i},:i'.::•:::.::i�ii:-'•i:?•�i•...:..:..::....:J ii::.. ii:ii:-iiM'i.. �:i?{??:�i�iiii: ittI : ;.N: i:t i`•:;i•.. ..::::.:.::•.:.JY1}I :::�.....T}j}Yii}}:}. l.}? i:i;: :;:i.: ::?:::: I Xi :::i:::f :::fi:? ij}TL}:; ? `: i ?:::4:Iri}i?sIt}.ri} I•:^I^::':I:PiiI2i.i 3:L3 i:ii:i........................... ........t........•..... i•ii ; .•; v:: i `/ isisi4:S:isYi::i::4tii;:•i::••F.:u?;iSti4:;zii;: ::i::iE;&ri;:ii;IL<?i?;:ii•;:i;:L;'i;:•ii•E;is.5:�:i:;•;c:: :i;:r :2::....x::::::::. , i 1 ii:{. — :;:: - • 1 ?.,,;::�: .is-- 7i � ........................ • ::•< i:::., ,®...:S:: `:•` ' 'i'iiati%if': .'r' .�. / �� t jj} :::;t::t;.:;tt•::::: :t•::;.:•:;tt;•::.:�:>:: Fs ,�/ . I./i/: , 'Z:::;;:it:`v I :s'`};: :;r:::;;•;::;;::i:::. :;:;::i• i:.,,�4 j X11"�//: /� / i `.3i:::#•:vim(+:•:: I® . :1 : :% .7.*r)F - /I , ; /////'/. ..,.....F.,..y.a.k.x............:. if'./, / / IIfI!I i ® {i ii:iik}::iii. (® I� �,f `�. • / 1 / I /.. :// ,/7/7 , ./7 / / J I •2/- I ///y/f/ - _ / / //: / f i4' I :4i !v ^t : : , ///7; tell l{ t ...:1...-..:.:,..,............ , vy . ,, °°(9 IL\i pi i goggs : 1 i . ../ /f/ / 17,, /4/ -es*. 8 \ 0 liff:g±::::::: I I/4 i i z tani., l I,/ , //1' • I , iiii: :::EK { /11///ii joii/: ,„, .. / / t ,vv/ ////77///r, r•:- /1/ `•___�� -,),. 7/7z/7/-/7/./_z,_/ /-` i Sri 1 .::..: .......... ....... ....... l ...... .......... :s{ ?:i, ::::�rS:iF�i: :::;:i�::: :its : ::: ii:: : k ::�:; :::::::•�:i::::Ci::::: :: _ ll I : f f ::•:::::�if:.i"afdiv.�•:::::::::::.�::::.::::::.::::.:::::.�:::::: : ;.;;: .:::, ;::::.:: ;.::.. :::f:::• :•::s::i<.:•;:::istii•:•:;:iti{;r:;.:k:;F.i;•;:ii•;;:;?::k: .:.......................................................................................::•::s:::::•..:::......:: :.::....::.:.:::. J 11 3 1 :.::::.:K:Etaliiir -----t 'i f - Lao Liaai flOAD - r a I .. 1 41 . a 1 IIII . 0 -1-1 Oa 1141 i C ) ;34 IVA&v Phe ! I i 11111n ! 1 NIP i Eii • 2 ,,,• , I . 1 , . 1/41 041 = GI it • Z z 1> I • I 1 8 I 8 o •• ••' -,1 IIZ N, li \ 1 d 1,144,11 a y, m za 10 d Ifil --I ' - 1 0 D ci) **.X—•-- - --•-- , - • .. •......41::::..... ': - .....*:".. . •:•:-.... /.-* c r.0 r-lt - , a : --i • --; ' •—••••• 1 73 ... ..• i , 0 i ..'. i V..f ! f_f.. 1:=3• 0 4111 I 4,...„,,...+ . \-v- ,, .N 1,5td—• . . , -. -..--.....-..:ii-..-1,_:, 1 e -7,- •••••• •••-• --4:-:-) 1 ., II 1.,/s,. . .....--:-..y.--..::-:N.....1 I i .4,,,c,::,_::,:-_-_-_--•.:_:_:.:.:.:-::::n.:4iiirltileli . i.1 • - - Bet ia It_ _ R PE •:".....•:•:' •:•:°:•:*.):*.iti, I 0 X 1 I • -•••,• •-:•,..• ••• ).ax a a a IX;Y•.-:•:•'•*-* ••--- '''-e*•:-••4•-' a - 1i1 L II a 4 . 1 ci 411 ft noirmokiniN II 11,%=-J6.1 i - .-- •••10:-.1* 7 .-:-. ;44\\Id, li I •yke ............-----, - -, II= moo=---'-'-:-: "-:-. - "•:a.•, -:-:-..-,,,:--:::...--.:.: it*, • , .-.-1.-.„ .-..-. :.- CVDEr---- -5•VIK57 - -"71 I Ill . I 1.-:•, •••••• **-'• :-:- i PEI i 04 ill I / 11. . •-. .. . .41.1::-:-:::-:-. -:::.•Mi . I V..-:gi--."..:::::-.:.: . ,......./.‹:_:.. -..,,: .......„ li . . . ::,::::„ 1 . •- .,_J -....- ii41•1 t 4 i 1 , : • i :r...1 ...•%•'''.' .......*: *AO i 44 I I •*--.::::::.-:::-••••*-••:-:. ....X....*L,.,_,_. ...it 41 i 2, SI ! . ..........•- .•-• --•-.-.-.•Y.7.7;.:......-".!"...7‘..:.'•'••-'I .-.•. 1,1,:,:,1. _ —4-....— .....—!0_11........ .- , i -:......."-'--..-L-:•:-:•:•:::::•:•:••.•:•:•:•: ••-••.•.'.'-'-'-'-:••4•t•-•-•••••••••-• •-••-••••—• ''•"' I ..•":7....7..:7r"f..T.:7n... 47::.:. .7-4... ••".2.e2,:fa--.....". -.•••• I:2',........ ..::::::•2 N.:::::::::.:...:•:::::.:::.:.;:'-;- --".-,y,--c..:..--.=:----.-....-.1:=7.• 1 i •••;-•*:?::; ••• •:-F•.. ::::.•••••••:-:.•:•:•:•:::':-•:-:•:•........ ..4.•.•:IV:•:::•: •.•:•?Rtier:•::::: 1.i.):' h:::;::•0:;:•-;::::......ii::::::::::•:::•: •P•fr-••••••-•11:•••••:••....-:-:••••:,:-:-.:..-*•••• .ept... •••• a ........, ..i. . --.-.--.• ,i ormissemsal r...-7— Lrifl 7:::::::•:•• :•:-:-..-'-'•:•:':•:'::.•. / -VIM ' •.':' .'. :.4.3 il•:;•:-i.t. f:::•-:::•;.1*••••::7`'='•••••:::•::::•: 1 izj :- CO •%*:-::::*•:;•__.4.:- --- "-:•:-:::::-, -Y.-X.-:::•:•-•:•. ih:::. ;1::. ; .:-; ....• .ik• ii :.:::,..i:L...:.z:•:.1.:::..15., :.:.:..::::; it ;:::_:......7..;.:?_:;::.:::. ....::. ..::::: ::::: :...1,:..:.:.::t:is _ ..:::: ::.::: ::1:0: .:1.1:::.:.:.:?Fct.:;....,...4.:::.:.:: ::::::):::: :::: ! 1 „... . .H !,:..:._:....r.L1%e‘._••:'•:-...::::::•• r,--.7--:-.joistH..4sf. ,.::...jwraimaNnimaL •••• * • • •••••• .1 '•-•‘•-•" :'-'•'`_ :::___71::2_...:• : 11:__I % ' I ° I 1 li c.... __...i I I I A.:.1);•.:V::;:::.::.4.... I I I spill- i ii 1: F 1 11,;.?.. .....'':.;X: I I . 10 I I I 1 1 I 1 40 EF1T:j t ..., • xf f -L 0C m r I D { " wigAl !rail • . 1:-,-.004-, Ili u kFili v • y • �, , z Fi aim v • C 1� ; i � asII' i r t H I Ail E' \ Mil 444:17.77. \I,IIIW _-_ `a.fi-41 t_ ,� id 3M ED • . -;-. -,-,---.:',illili . j • f• :•4 i I -A---ni•-.7-;•-atm 74 I iiir 8 .- co — •j c�0 `731i rr.:.===.•..i€ F, CD ;7 m s c m C N • Z L >{ 5 m • :'R b i IV ' it4 i m I +AP• c " I z m ®, 1 l il • I ,41Q J 0 ® shell p r ► A C v —CO I _ MIN C •0 Zi , \ psi b.::. S m IL--] x 2�s r • .o • ` • s� C� �EH] r- SEE ,i L".: i E!]i11 ` 1111 3 l�•I:J . ,ts ' if 11 I illik '-.i' - ! P ZV' [FIFii i !!(( • Ct? —r it - - 0 1,.rIli. i • l'IT :,.:41.110 'N '�° 14 lf i 2.M.C, 3,r, ,ir ,:::.7..,=.7.:*-2 t; ,:iir -.1 it i In.1›. . Vit.'. filli– : 31-Lit N. 1 1141 it i 11/12/1999 10:18 6127860658 SUNRISE UMCTED MET PAGE 01 C_!( r,4149iy .i,• . :.Mr/'' , �',.riot'Er'IrMii6 a • Sunrise Methodist Church was organised in January `' ' "' Y' �(' 4( !' ' ' of 1954 at the Sunnyside School in New Brighton. A moving force in the organization was Dr. E. B.Cooney St.Paul Dia- :4'1'. ia- '1 'I e;,,,:,; f '"k trict Superintendent. The congregation continued to meet at Sunnyside until November of 1957 when it moved into its new building at 2520 County Road I in Mounds View. • By the summer of 1954, when the charter list was closed, 83 persons had become members of Sunrise a rented For first two years the Sunrise pastorpar- sonage. By 1956 a parsonage had been built with much of • r , , the labor donated by members of the congregation. Next • ��'','.�';'r - an old church building was moved to the present church site meeting ,.,�•,�� �;�� �s r � F,, , from West St. Paul. This was to be a temporary L,/.,L.: ‘•-i,..°`'' place until a new structure could be built. The mover who h •4t• `r.:. brought the old church here from West St.Paul did not•have the proper moving permit, he was apprehended by the police after the church building hit a power line and knocked out the electrical service for a large section of St. Paul. He was fined $150.00. Financial problems made it necessary to incorporate the old church building in plans for the new. A basement was built beneath the old building, the peaked roof was replaced by a flat roof, and a ground-level educational unit was built around it. The result was a "split-level sanctuary" with the overflow area some three feet higher than the chapel in the new part of the building. as interim pastor of the The Rev, Arthur Beckendorf, a retired Methodist missionary, was appointed newly formed Sunrise congregation and served here from January, 1954, until June of thatsame year. At the June, 1964, Annual Conference a full-time pastor was appointed to serve the congregation- He was the Rev. Robert Armand who, with his wife and three children, came here from a pastorate in Ohio. The Rev. Armand served here for 5 years and then was forced to retire because of failing health. In 1959 the Rev.Donald Shef and came to Sunrise church and was here for 3 years. In 1962 the Rev.Sheffield moved to Hutchinson, the Rev. William Foster became this church's third pastor. Caanan, Connecticutt For six weeks the Rev. W, Erle April of 1964, at which time he accepted an appointment to serve a Methodst church in Shields, a retired Methodist minister, served the congregation. In May of 1964,the present pastor came to Sunrise from Walker Methodist Church of Howard Lake,MN. On May 6, 1965, the church and parsonage were struck by a tornado. The church was considered a total loss by the insurance company and the parsonage suffered about $6000 damage. Plans were begun immedi- ately for a new building. Throughout the summer the congregation met for worship in the Bel Rae Ballroom, about four blocks from the church site. In the fall it began meeting in the Red Oak School and continued there for a year. During the summer the congregation tore down the remaining church structure and sold much of the salvageable material. With some professional help, members of the congregation built a three-car garage in order to provide parking for the parsonage cars and additional storage for the church. Construction on a new church began in December, 1965, and the congregation moved into the new structure in September o 1966.was e con- tractor for the new church was Henning Nelson. The architect was Roger T. Johnson, $200,000. In September, 1967, the church and the architect received an award for architectural excellence from the Minnesota Society of Architects. Sunrise church was the only church in Minnesota to share in such an award in 1967. During the fall and spring, 1966-67, members of the congregation laid nearly 3000 yards of sod around the new building. In the summer of 1967 they installed parking lot lights and that fall the parking lot was black- topped. An additional sidewalk was added and a landscape project begun in the spring of 1968. From October of 1972 until November of 1973 the Abiding Savior Lutheran congregation rented our facilities for most of their mid-week activities while their new building was under construction. This was a very busy time for Sunrise with two congregations making use of the same space, especially in view of the fact that their congregation is about 3 times larger than ours. In September of 1972 the Fellowship Hall was carpeted to make space more usable with less noise. In January of 1974 the Sunrise congregation celebrated its 20th anni- versary with District Superintendent Clarence Nicholas as guest speaker. The congregation has grown from an original $3 to a present 540. Budget-wise it has gone from an annual figure of around $12,000 to a present figure of around$53,000. The 1973-74 year has seen a church-wide spiritual renewal which we believe will be of lasting significance. In the fall of 1974 we are planning to have a pastor's assistant from nearby New Brighton Seminary. We are also presently involved in plans for the final edu- • .•'''.eational unit to be added on the north side of our present structure. All in all,the future looks bright for Sunrise .. _. A +n,nr,fv opwr neriod of its life in Northern Suburbia. • , MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 598-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR SUNRISE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH LOCATED AT 7687 LONG LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NOS. 574-99, 575-99. WHEREAS, Vanman Companies, representing Sunrise United Methodist Church, has applied for a conditional use permit and development review to expand the Church facility located at 7687 Long Lake Road; and, WHEREAS,the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, is designated as a "Church" use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as follows: The west 388.5 feet of that part of the NW% of the NW% of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying North of the North Line of the South 15 acres thereof.subject to County Road I and Long Lake Road. WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any new construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development review; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1106.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, churches and other institutional-type uses require a conditional use permit to operate within the R-1 zoning district; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan, date-stamped 10/29/99 e. Floor Plan and Elevations, date-stamped 10/29/99 f. Staff Report VVHEREAS,the dimensional requirements associated with this use are all met, with the exception of an existing two-foot non-conforming parking lot setback adjacent to Long Lake Road; and, Planning Commission Resolution 598-99 December 1, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission acknowledges the presence of wetlands on the Church property yet finds that the areas of building expansion fall outside of the 100-foot buffer surrounding the wetland; and, WHEREAS, the site plans date-stamped 10/29/99 indicate that the existing Church area of 13,000 square feet will be increased by approximately 7,500 square feet for a total build-out area of 20,500 square feet; and, WHEREAS, according to said plans, the seating capacity of the worship area will increase from 275 to accommodate 368 people; and, WHEREAS, there are 98 parking stalls presently available on the site which, according to Section 1121.13 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, exceeds the minimum number of stalls required to be provided for 368 seats; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has considered the specific criteria for Churches and other institutional use facilities as they appear in Section 1106.04, Subdivision 1 and finds that they are met; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has considered the provisions from Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use and makes the following findings: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as "Church", which is consistent with the R-1 zoning of this site. Sunrise Church, which has existed at this location for more than 40 years, provides a desired service to the residents of the City and neighboring communities. The property is bordered by public streets on its west, north and south boundaries and bordered by medium and high density residential on its east side. The proposed expansion would be in keeping with the existing design and architecture and would not detract from the character of the surrounding area. WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the general criteria for CUP approval in Subdivision 1125.01 (2) have been met: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. It is not expected that the expansion of this use will have any impact on parks, schools, streets Planning Commission Resolution 598-99 December 1, 1999 Page 3 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. The Church property is bordered on three sides by public streets--Long Lake Road to the west, County Road Ito the north and Bronson Drive to the south. To the east, the Church abuts both medium and high density residential properties. These properties are at least one hundred feet away at their nearest point and as far away as 500 feet from the Church. The magnitude of the separation, in staff's opinion, is of a sufficient distance so as to not have any depreciatory effect on the residential properties. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The existing Church, given its separation from other uses, fits well in this area and is aesthetically pleasing. As evidence of this, the Church and the architect who designed it received an award in 1967 for architectural excellence from the Minnesota Society of Architects. The expansion will match the appearance and design of the existing structure and will add to the overall appearance of the community. (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 fact that the Church has existed in this location for 42 years with a consistent and growing congregation is proof alone that the use satisfies a community need. Its expansion is a direct result of the Church's growing congregation and its desire to be more responsive to its membership. (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. Churches and other institutional uses are conditionally permitted within the R-1, Single-family residential district. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as a"Church" use. Churches and other institutional uses are conditionally permitted within the R-1, Single-family residential district. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Staff is unaware of any congestion problems on Long Lake Road as a result of the Church's services. The additional traffic generated by the expansion would not add any significant Planning Commission Resolution 598-99 December 1, 1999 Page 4 volume to Long Lake Road, a Ramsey County four lane collector roadway, a street designed to accommodate higher volumes of traffic. Also, the times during which the Church would have its greatest impact upon the street is also a period of relatively low traffic counts. Given these facts, it is not anticipated that the use will 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 or its expansion. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, fording that all of the requirements have been met, does hereby recommend that the City Council approve a conditional use permit and development review for the operation and expansion of the Sunrise United Methodist Church as requested by Vanman Companies, with the following stipulations: 1. The design and character of the expanded areas shall match and complement the existing architecture of the Church. 2. The existing non-conforming parking lot setback shall be allowed to remain until such time that the parking lot is reconstructed or resurfaced and the non-conformity can be corrected. 3. Two additional parking stalls shall be marked and posted as "handicapped" to comply with ADA requirements. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the City Council resolution of approval with Ramsey County within 60 days of final approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 1st day of December, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke,Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\574-99\598-99PC.RES RESOLUTION NO. 5387 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR SUNRISE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, LOCATED AT 7687 LONG LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NOS. 574-99, 575-99. WHEREAS, Vanman Companies, representing Sunrise United Methodist Church, has applied for a conditional use permit and development review to expand the Church facility located at 7687 Long Lake Road; and, WHEREAS,the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, is designated as a "Church" use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as follows: The west 388.5 feet of that part of the NW% of the NW % of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying North of the North Line of the South 15 acres thereof.subject to County Road I and Long Lake Road. WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any new construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development review; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1106.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, churches and other institutional-type uses require a conditional use permit to operate within the R-1 zoning district; and, 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, date-stamped 10/29/99 e. Floor Plan and Elevations, date-stamped 10/29/99 f. Planning Commission Resolution 598-99 g. Staff Report WHEREAS,the dimensional requirements associated with this use are all met, with the exception of an existing two-foot non-conforming parking lot setback adjacent to Long Lake Road; and, Resolution 5387 December 13, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council acknowledges the presence of wetlands on the Church property yet finds that the areas of building expansion fall outside of the 100-foot buffer surrounding the wetland; and, WHEREAS, the site plans date-stamped 10/29/99 indicate that the existing Church area of 13,000 square feet will be increased by approximately 7,500 square feet for a total build-out area of 20,500 square feet; and, WHEREAS, according to said plans, the seating capacity of the worship area will increase from 275 to accommodate 368 people; and, WHEREAS, there are 98 parking stalls presently available on the site, which, according to Section 1121.13 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, exceeds the minimum number of stalls required to be provided for 368 seats; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council has considered the specific criteria for Churches and other institutional use facilities as they appear in Section 1106.04, Subdivision 1 and finds that they are met; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has considered the provisions from Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use and makes the following findings: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as "Church", which is consistent with the R-1 zoning of this site. Sunrise Church, which has existed at this location for more than 40 years, provides a desired service to the residents of the City and neighboring communities. The property is bordered by public streets on its west, north and south boundaries and bordered by medium and high density residential on its east side. The proposed expansion would be in keeping with the existing design and architecture and would not detract from the character of the surrounding 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 the expansion of 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. Resolution 5387 December 13, 1999 Page 3 (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. The Church property is bordered on three sides by public streets--Long Lake Road to the west, County Road Ito the north and Bronson Drive to the south. To the east, the Church abuts both medium and high density residential properties. These properties are at least one hundred feet away at their nearest point and as far away as 500 feet from the Church. The magnitude of the separation, in staff's opinion, is of a sufficient distance so as to not have any depreciatory effect on the residential properties. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The existing Church, given its separation from other uses, fits well in this area and is aesthetically pleasing. As evidence of this, the Church and the architect who designed it received an award in 1967 for architectural excellence from the Minnesota Society of Architects. The expansion will match the appearance and design of the existing structure and will add to the overall appearance of the community. (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 fact that the Church has existed in this location for 42 years with a consistent and growing congregation is proof alone that the use satisfies a community need. Its expansion is a direct result of the Church's growing congregation and its desire to be more responsive to its membership. (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. Churches and other institutional uses are conditionally permitted within the R-1, Single-family residential district. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as a"Church" use. Churches and other institutional uses are conditionally permitted within the R-1, Single-family residential district. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Staff is unaware of any congestion problems on Long Lake Road as a result of the Church's services. The additional traffic generated by the expansion would not add any significant volume to Long Lake Road, a Ramsey County four lane collector roadway, a street designed M=1117/111110.MIMINMEMINEMIN Resolution 5387 December 13, 1999 Page 4 to accommodate higher volumes of traffic. Also, the times during which the Church would have its greatest impact upon the street is also a period of relatively low traffic counts. Given these facts, it is not anticipated that the use will 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 or its expansion. WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council acknowledges receipt of Planning Commission Resolution 598-99, a resolution the Planning Commission adopted December 1, 1999, recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the Sunrise United Methodist Church. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council finds that all of the requirements have been met, and does hereby approve a conditional use permit and development review for the operation and expansion of the Sunrise United Methodist Church located at 7687 Long Lake Road, as requested by Vanman Companies, with the following stipulations: 1. The design and character of the expanded areas shall match and/or complement the existing architecture of the Church. 2. The existing non-conforming parking lot setback shall be allowed to remain until such time that the parking lot is reconstructed or resurfaced and the non-conformity can be corrected. 3. Two additional parking stalls shall be added, marked and posted as "handicapped" to comply with ADA requirements. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the City Council resolution of approval with Ramsey County within 60 days of final approval. Adopted this 13th day of December, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S.Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\574-99\53 87CC.RES Item No. /0 ,D Staff Report No. Meeting Date: December 13, 1999 Type of Business: PH& CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 642, an Ordinance Amending Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code (Zoning Code), Chapters 1104, 1107 and 1121, Relating to Driveways and Curb Cuts. Date of Report: December 13, 1999 Background: Ordinance 642 (attached) is proposed to make the Zoning Code consistent with Chapter 902 which was recently amended with the Council's adoption of Ordinance 640. In addition to resolving inconsistencies, this ordinance makes changes to driveway and curb cut widths by zoning district. According to Minnesota Statutes, a public hearing is required for this ordinance as it amends the City's Zoning Code. The version of the ordinance presented for the first reading includes a minor change from the version the Planning Commission approved and the version the Council was given at the work session on December 6, 1999. The change will be pointed out within the body of this report. Discussion: The significant changes are highlighted as follows in bulleted points: • Driveway widths have been removed from their currently obscure hiding place within the setback section of 1104.01, Subd. 4 and added to Section 1121.09, Subd. 1, "Dimensions" in a table format. The table format is a new addition since Planning Commission forwarded this ordinance for Council review--staff realized that in making the change to the R-1 district alone, driveway widths in other residential districts had became undefined • The ordinance creates a distinction between zero-lot line subdivisions (separately owned side-by-side twin homes) and duplexes, both of which are zoned R-2. The Code currently allows properties in an R-2 district to have a 35-foot wide driveway; however, because zero-lot line properties (such as the new twinhomes on Silver Lake Road) are individual 50-foot wide parcels, the result could be 70 feet of driveway within 100 feet of lot! Staff is confident that this was not the intent of this provision when the Code was drafted. City of Mounds View Staff Report December 9, 1999 Page 2 • The ordinance allows for wider driveways in an R-1 district, increasing the maximum width from 35 feet to 35 feet or the width of the garage plus an additional 12 feet. After much discussion, the Commission concluded that the 35-foot limitation was too restrictive, especially for properties having wide three-car garages--the driveway could not be as wide as the garage! This will resolve that, yet will also open the door for more cars on a property and additional impervious surface. While both are legitimate concerns, the Commission believed the benefits of the change outweighed the potential environmental consequences and risk of abuse. • The also ordinance presents curb-cut widths in a table format to improve readability and comprehension. Staff does not believe the change made to this ordinance subsequent to the Commission's recommendation to be substantial enough to warrant the Commission's reapproval prior to the first reading. Staff will however alert the Commission to these changes and will advise the Council prior to the second reading if any further changes would be required. It is possible that one other change could be made to the ordinance, pertaining to Subdivision 4 of Section 1121.09, regarding angled parking dimensions. Staff has become aware that the dimensions are incorrect and do not take into consideration other possible stall configurations. Staff will research this issue and if a change is needed, the appropriate language would be drafted and inserted prior to the second reading, which has been tentatively scheduled for January 10, 2000. Recommendation: Introduce the first reading of Ordinance 642 and direct staff to make any further changes that may be necessary after taking public testimony and after the Council has discussed the ordinance. Because the possibility exists that the ordinance could undergo minor changes between the first and second readings, staff would also recommend that the Council continue the Public Hearing through the second reading to allow residents the opportunity to speak to the ordinance at either reading. aktiLGO SQ}Uk191 -- James Ericson, Planner N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP074-99\MEMO2.CC MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 600-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 642, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1104, 1107 AND 1121 REGARDING CURB CUTS AND DRIVEWAY WIDTHS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-074-99 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Ordinance 642, and ordinance amending Zoning Code Chapters 1104, 1107 and 1121 pertaining to curb cuts and driveway widths; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission after significant discussion believes the proposed ordinance to be in the best interest of the community and is in keeping with the overall spirit and intent of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission asserts that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the land use goals and policies addressed in the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the Mounds View City Council adoption of proposed Ordinance 642. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 1st day of December, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP074-99\600-99PC.RES ORDINANCE 642 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1100, CHAPTERS 1104, 1107 AND 1121 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE NO. SP-074-99 THE COUNCIL OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 1100, Chapter 1104 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to general zoning provisions shall be amended by the addition of the italicized and double- underlined language and the deletion of the striekenrthrough language in Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4 to read as follows: Subd. 4. Minimum Setbacks for Accessory Buildings, Driveways and Parking Areas: a. Accessory Buildings (detached from a principal building): (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O: (a) front: no accessory building shall be located between the front of the principal building and the front lot line. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side: five feet (5') except the minimum setback shall be thirty feet (30') from any lot line abutting a public street. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (c) rear, including street frontages at the rear of through lots: five feet(5'). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (2) All other districts: (a) front: no accessory building shall be located between the front of the principal building and the front lot line. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side: same as principal building. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (c) rear: same as principal building, except accessory buildings having four hundred (400) square feet or less and not abutting property in a residential district or a street, may have a minimum rear setback of ten feet (10'). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) Ordinance 642 Page 2 b. Driveways: (1) Driveways shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5')from any lot line, except as permitted in Section 1104.01, Subd. 4b Walt and Section 1121.15, Subd. 2 of this Title. Driveways shall be permitted to cross a required setback area in order to establish access between the lot and a public street. Where a driveway would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit if required by the City prior to construction of the driveway. Drive aisles and driveways which are within the boundaries of a parking area shall conform to the setbacks required for parking areas. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (2) Driveways in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620 and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 902.02. Subdivision 2 . • •. . , . +' .• 1(b) of this Titk. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) c. Parking Areas: (1) R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O: (a) residential uses: Parking lots and driveways shall be set back five feet (5'), except in the R-1 and R-2 districts, parking areas and driveways shall be permitted with a setback of one foot(1') provided the owner(s) of the abutting lot(s) indicates their permission on a form acceptable to the City. Where a parking area would encroach into an easement, the property owner shall obtain approval for an encroachment permit if required by the appropriate authority prior to construction of the driveway. • •• + •. . and-driveway surfaces shall not cxuced thirty five fest(35'). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96; Ord. 620, 7-27-98) (b) non-residential uses: Parking lots and driveways shall be set back five feet (5') except where non-residential uses abut property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as follows: (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) [I]. for sites having two and one-half (2.5 ) acres or less: twenty feet (20') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) [ii]. for sites having more than two and one-half(2.5) acres: thirty feet (30') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) Ordinance 642 Page 3 (2) B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 (parking areas and loading docks): (a) front: thirty feet (30') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side and rear: five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuts a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as stated in Section 1104.01 subdivision 4c(1)(b). (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (3) I-1 (parking areas and loading docks): (a) front: forty feet (40') (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (b) side and rear: five feet (5'), except where a non-residential use abuts a property in a residential district, the setback for parking areas from the common property line shall be as stated in Section 1104.01 subdivision 4c(1)(b). (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 590, 11-25-96) (4) Parking areas in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620 and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 1123.02 subdivision lb. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) SECTION 2. Title 1100, Chapter 1107 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to zero lot line subdivisions shall be amended by the addition of the italicized and double-underlined language and the deletion of the strickenlanguage in Section 1107.07, Subdivision 3 to read as follows: Subd. 3. Specific Requirements for Resulting Dwelling Units: a. Area Requirements: Six thousand two hundred fifty(6,250) square feet. b. Lot Width: Fifty feet (50') per dwelling unit. c. Setback Requirements: (1) Front Yard: Thirty feet (30'). (2) Rear Yard: Thirty feet (30'). (3) Side Yard (where applicable): (a) Ten feet (10'). (b) Thirty feet(30') on street side of corner lot. Ordinance 642 Page 4 d Driveway Widths: The width of the driveway servicing one dwelling unit shall not exceed the width of that dwelling unit's garage, unless garages are situated side-by-side. then not to exceed the combined width of the garages. provided that the affected property owners have filed aright of way and maintenance agreement with Ramsey County. according to the provisions of Section 1121.15. Subd 2 of f this Title pertaining to joint driveways. e. Curb Cut Width: The width of a curb cut servicing one dwelling unit shall not exceed twenty feet(209. In the event of a common or joint driveway servicing both units, the width of the curb cut shall not exceed thirty-six feet(369. SECTION 3. Title 1100, Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to off street parking requirements shall be amended by the addition of the italicized and double- underlined language and the deletion of the strickenlanguage in Section 1121.09, to read as follows: 1121.09: STALL, AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN: Subd. 1. Dimensions: Parking Space Size: Each parking space shall not be less than nine feet (9')wide and eighteen feet(18') in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served adequately by access aisles. Spaces designed as curbside parallel parking shall be twenty-two feet(229 in length. b. Maximum Residential Driveway Widths. (For the purpose of this subsection, the width of a driveway in an R-1. R-2 or R-5 District shall include any parallel-attached parking area): Residential Zoniiikidi r et Maxfmum.Driveway.Width R-1. Single Family Residential Thirty-five feet(359. or the width of the garage plus an additional twelve feet(14 whichever is greater., R-2, Zero Lot Line Subdivisions Width of the garage servicing dwelling unit. (Refer to Section 1107.07, Subd. 3d and 3e of this Title if driveways are combined.) R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential If driveways are separate, width of the garage or twenty-two feet(229, whichever is greater: If combined. width of garages or thirty-six feet(36). whichever is greater. R-3,Medium Density Residential Thirty-two feet(329 R-4, High Density Residential, and R-O,Residential-Office R-5,Mobile Home Park Twenty-four feet(24) Ordinance 642 Page 5 Subd. 2. Within Structures: The off-street parking requirements may be furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or one attached thereto; however, unless provisions are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said space into a dwelling unit or living area until other adequate provisions are made to comply with the required off-street parking provisions of this Title. Subd. 3. Circulation: Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking areas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs within the designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or alley. Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking area design which requires backing into the public street is prohibited. Subd. 4. Dimensions: a. Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance with the following standards: Wall to Interlock to Wall to Interlock Interlock Wall Angle Minimum Minimum Minimum Dimension A Dimension B Dimension C 45° 44.8' 43.0' 47.0' 60° 52.5' 51.0' 54.0° 75° 61.3' 61.0' 62.0' 90° 63.0' 63.0' 63.0' • . . • WALL A 6 ANGLE G Ordinance 642 Page 6 Subd. 5. Curb Cuts and Driveway Openings: a. No curb cut access shall be located less than fifty feet (50')from the intersection of two (2) or more street rights of way. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines. b. Curb Cut Widths. Widths of curb cuts shall be as follows. subject to requirements of Subdivision Se hereof. No curb cut access shall exceed twenty two feet (22') in width for R-1 and R-5 residential uses. A thirty foot (30')wide curb cut shall be permissible for R-2, R-3 and R-4 uscs, subject to requirements of subdivision 5e hereof, commercial uses • Type of Land Ilse Maximum If4dtkofeurii,Cut Single Family Residential(R-1) Manufactured Homes (R-5) 24 Feet Zero Lot Line Subdivisions (R-2) 18 Feet Zero Lot Line Subdivisions (R-2) 36 Feet (with combined driveways) Medium Density Residential(R-2. R-3) 32 Feet High Density Residential(R-4), Residential Office (R-O) Commercial,Industrial 32 Feet (B-1, B-2. B-3. B-4.1-1) Public Parks&Preservation Areas 32 Feet (PF. CRP) c. Curb cut openings shall be at a minimum of three feet (3') from the lot line in residential districts and five feet (5') from the lot line in business or industrial districts. d. Driveway access curb openings on a public street, except for single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, shall not be located less than forty feet (40') from one another. e. Each property elevation of any parking area shall be allowed one curb cut access for each one hundred twenty five feet(125') of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one curb cut. Single-family uses and zero lot line subdivided lots' shall be limited to one curb cut access per property unless, upon application for a variance of this restriction, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that it is in the interest of public 'Refer to Section 1107.03 of this Title for more information regarding Zero Lot Line Subdivisions. Ordinance 642 Page 7 safety to waive such. Medium density residential (2 to 6 units) may have two (2) curb cuts; provided, at each cut does trot cxceed twelve fect(12'), and that thcir surfaces are a • . . = : . .. neither curb cut exceeds twenty feet (20') in width. . Curb cuts in existence as o 10/11/99 that do not con orm to this subdivision ma remain in existence unless deemed by the Director of Public Works to be a danger or public safety hazard Notices to abandon a curb cut may be appealed in writing to the City Council(Ord 640. 10/11/99). Subd. 6. Grade Elevation: The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five percent (5%). (1988 Code §40.07). Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in Subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with a permanent, improved surface material as defined in Section 1102.02 of this Chapter, suitable to control dust, drainage and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.053 of this Code except as follows: A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Section 902.053, Subd. 5 of this Code may be used for parking areas in an R-1 or R-2 District not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet or, if to be used as a parking surface for an RV, the minimum area that would encompasses the wheel-base area of one(1) recreational vehicle. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review, and the final drainage plan must receive the Director of Public Works/City Engineer's written approval. (Ord. 524, 2-22-93; Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord 640. 10/11/99) Subd. 8. Striping: Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses, all parking stalls shall be marked with yellow painted lines not less than four inches (4")wide. Subd. 9. Lighting: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged so to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses and public rights of way and be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of this Title. Subd. 10. Signs: No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation and traffic movement within any parking lot. All signing must conform to the Mounds View Sign Code2. Subd. 11. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for single-family and two-family developments. and townhouscs (i11 devclopment , all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot. The specifications and location of this curb barrier shall comply with Section 902.04 and with the setback requirements for parking areas stated in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4. Grass, plantings or surfacing materials shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. (Ord. 590, 11/26/96; Ord 640. 10/11/99.) 2 See Chapter 1008 of this Code. Ordinance 642 Page 8 Subd. 12. Required Screening: All open, nonresidential, off-street parking areas of five (5) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with subdivision 1103.08(6) of this Title. (1988 Code §40.07) SECTION 4. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of December, 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 10th day of January, 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Attest: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP074-99\642.0RD /D C Item No. Type of Business: PH WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda; CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Givonna Reed Item Title/Subject: New Tobacco License at 2563 1/2 Highway 10 Date of Report: December 13, 1999 At the Council's direction I advertised a continuation of the November 22nd, 1999 public hearing regarding an application for a new tobacco license at 2563 1/2 Highway 10. As you will recall, the application was determined to be incomplete due to incorrect information regarding an insurance policy and the fact that the Police Department was unable to confirm the existence of the applicant. I attempted to notify the applicant, Nayfha Wraidt, of the continuation of the public hearing with a certified letter (mailed November 29, 1999) and two telephone calls (December 8th and 9th). I have not yet received the return receipt from the certified letter, and the person who answered the telephone at the number I have for Nayfha Wraidt indicated that Nayfha no longer needs the tobacco license. Staff Recommendation: Deny application based on untrue statements and the inability to confirm information. M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Item XX--Public Hearing re Tobacco License at 2563.5 Hwy 10(Givonna Reed).doc Item No. /Q ,Q Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 12/13/99 Type of Business: PH 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: Ordinance No. 644 an Ordinance Amendment to Allow Billboards by Conditional Use Permit. Date of Report: December 9, 1999 Background: The City Council on November 22, 1999 gave first reading approval to Ordinance No. 644 which would allow billboards by conditional use permit on city owned property along new Highway 10 (118). The City Attorney has however advised staff that the City cannot restrict billboards to city- owned property only and that the state restricts permit issuance to commercially and industrially zoned properties. The City Council discussed this matter at the December 6, 1999 work session. A public hearing on this matter is scheduled for December 13, 1999. The attached Ordinance No. 644 includes two changes that were not included in the version that was given first reading approval on November 22, 1999. The following changes were made based on City Council input at the December 6, 1999 work session: 1.The following amendment was made to subdivision 10b to deal with the City Attorney's concern about restricting billboards to city-owned property: The billboard must be located along en and north of State Highway 10(118). and must be located on City owned property. 2. The minimum spacing requirement of 1500 feet is decreased to 1000 feet to maximize potential billboard sites on city-owned property. The Planning Commission has considered the draft ordinance to allow billboards and has passed the attached Resolution No. 597-99 recommending City Council denial of the proposed ordinance. This resolution was reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office. The Planning Commission findings and the basis for their recommended denial are as follows: 1. Large billboard signs are not appropriate uses of property within CRP Conservation Recreational Preservation and PF Public Facilities zoning districts. These districts are intended to provide recreational opportunities, open space and protect the natural environment where possible. Large advertising signs are not consistent with that intent and are more appropriate to commercial and industrial City of Mounds View Staff Report December 9, 1999 Page 2 zoning districts. 2. Large billboard signs can be visually distractive and may detract from the neighborhood and promote a negative image for the community. 3. The City Attorney has advised City staff that the City cannot limit billboards to city-owned properties only. 4. A permit will be required from the State of Minnesota to locate billboards along state and federal highways. State statutes restrict such signs to commercial and industrial zoning districts only. The contemplated sites for additional billboards are not zoned commercial or industrial. The Planning Commission, as the City's advisory commission on land use matters, confined their review to the land use impacts of the proposed ordinance and did not consider the economic factors. The consideration of economic factors is the role of the City Council. Necessary Actions: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing on this matter and approve or disapprove second reading of Ordinance No. 644. Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:\DATA\USERS\Rickj\SHARE\121399 Billboard Staff Report.doc ORDINANCE NO. 644 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLBOARDS; PLANNING CASE SP-071-99 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1008.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions struck out and italicized, respectively, to read as follows: Subd. 1. General Standards; Paragraph I (1): No ground sign (except temporary signs, portable signs or banners), or signboard or billboard shall approach at any point nearer than three feet (3') to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the building, nor shall any such sign be placed within six feet (6') of the side of any lot nor nearer than fifteen feet (15') to any street line where there is no established or customary building line nor within twenty five feet (25') of any street corner right-of-way. Whenever the established or customary uniform building line upon the street where such ground sign is to be erected is more than fifteen feet (15') from the street or property line, then such sign shall not approach nearer to the street than the established or customary uniform building line. Subd. 5. Signs Along Freeways: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, signs located on property adjacent to any freeway within the Municipality(including Interstate Highway 35W) shall be business signs advertising businesses being conducted on the premises on which the signs are located. No "traveling" or changing-message signs shall be located so as to face any freeway or be visible from the freeway. The provisions of this subdivision, however, shall not be construed to render illegal or nonconforming any signs that are legally located along any such freeway at the effective date herein.Any replaaced-saahject to compliance with the other pro '_ .•_ •._ _ • Subd. 10. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard or advertising - • _ .. .. _ • -- - - ii' - _. . _ . .- - billboard or sign in existence. unless it complies with the following requirements: a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:A conditional use permit(CUP) must be obtained in accordance the procedures found in Section 1125.01 Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. Any conditional use permit issued,for a billboard shall automatically expire when the lease agreement for the billboard expires. Such CUP shall be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of Minnesota. b. LOCATION: The billboard must be located along and north of State Highway 10 (118) . The applicant must have an approved lease agreement with the City. The billboard shall be oriented towards State Highway 10 (118) and/or I35W. Billboards must be located at least 250,feet,from residentially zoned property. Billboards may be located adjacent to the right-of-way of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall extend over such right-of-way. c. MINIMUM SPACING: Billboards must be at least 1000,feet apart. Spacing between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read and measuring the distance in a straight line between the projected points. Required spacing shall apply only to billboards on the same side of the same roadway. d. MAXIMUM SIGN AREA: The maximum gross surface display area of the sign cannot exceed 700 square feet per side except that any rectangular billboard may contain temporary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a total area not in excess of twenty-five (25)percent of the area of the basic billboard and form an integral part of the design thereof No such temporary extension, cut out, or top lettering may project more than six (6),feet,from the top, eighteen (18) inches,from either side or fifteen (15) inches,from the bottom of the basic rectangular advertising message. The area of an extension, cutout, or top lettering shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectangle into which such extension, cutout, or top lettering will fit. e. ORIENTATION OF SIGN FACES: Billboards may have no more than two (2) sign faces. Sign,faces must be back-to-back with sign,faces parallel or angled. All billboards with their,faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater distance than eight(8),feet between the faces. All billboards with faces at an angle shall have no greater angle than thirty-five (35) degrees. f MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT: The maximum allowable height of billboards shall be thirty-five (35)feet. The height shall be measured from the grade at the base of the sign or from the surface of the roadway whichever is higher. g. OBSTRUCTION: No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or otherwise interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, signal, or device, or obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic. Any billboard legally existing on the effective date of this ordinance may continue to be maintained in its present,form and size but not expanded. This does not preclude the periodic change of the message or advertisement presented on the billboard. Any billboard destroyed by an act of God may be rebuilt within thirty (30) days if the construction of same would comply with this subdivision. SECTION 2: The title of Section 1008.11 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and italicized and deletions struck out and italicized, respectively, to read as follows: 1008.11: SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS: SIGN VARIANCES: SECTION 3. This Ordinance goes into effect thirty(30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney C:\TEMP\644.ORD.DOC Item No. /6 E Staff Report No. Meeting Date: December 13, 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 5401, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit at 2551 Ridge Lane, requested by owner, Jamie Sharp. Date of Report: December 8, 1999 Background: The subject property, located at the northwest corner of Long Lake Road and Ridge Lane, lies within 100 feet of a wetland, as shown on the attached survey and wetland delineation, performed by Arlig Environmental, Inc., and verified by Tony Brough of the Rice Creek Watershed District. The applicant, Jamie Sharp, would like permission to construct a single-family dwelling on this property, which is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. Because the City has no tree preservation ordinance and no restrictions against tree removal, the applicant has already begun clearing his lot in anticipation of future development. The City Council has found that wetlands within the City, as part of the ecosystem, are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people within the City, as well as within the Rice Creek Watershed District. In addition, the City Council has in mind its statutory obligation to comply with Chapters 104, 105 and 112 of Minnesota State Law, the regulations of Rice Creek Watershed District, Regulations of the Department of Natural Resources, including provisions for protected waters, Public Law 92.500 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act), open space policies of the Metropolitan Council and its guidelines encouraging protection and enhancement of marshes, wetlands in the flood plain area and the public interest in preventing irreparable destruction or deterioration of valuable natural resources. As such, the City Code, as stated in Section 1010.08 Subd. 2b, requires that any development occurring within one hundred feet of a wetland shall undergo careful review in order to protect the integrity of the City's wetland and natural drainage and watershed. Discussion: Staff has directed this request to the City's engineer, SEH, who reviews all wetland buffer and alteration permits, as well as to the Rice Creek Watershed District, which reviews and verifies all delineations of wetlands in Mounds View. The applicant had indicated a desire to construct the foundation below the minimum recommended building elevation for this area, which Beth Peterson, Project Engineer for SEH, recommended against. Her report is attached. Sharp Wetland Buffer Permit 2551 Ridge Lane December 13, 1999 Page 2 Rocky Keehn, a certified wetland hydrologist with SEH, indicated that the construction of a house and resulting impervious surface would not have a detrimental impact upon the adjacent wetland. The limited filling of flood storage capacity and subsequent creation in excess of that removed would be in keeping with the City's Local Water Management Handbook requirements. Mr. Keehn also indicated that the physical distance between the house and wetland is sufficient for buffering and would act as a natural filtration of any stormwater runoff. Tony Brough, inspector for the Rice Creek Watershed District, performed a site inspection and confirmed the wetland boundary as delineated by Arlig Environmental,Inc. to be valid. Standards for Approval: No buffer permit shall be issued unless the City finds and determines that the proposed development complies with the following standards: (1) Any alteration shall not cause a reduction in the flood storage capacity of the wetland. Flood storage capacity shall be determined by analysis of the runoff from the entire developed wetland drainage district resulting from both the 2-year and 100 year frequency, 24-hour SCS Type I distribution storms. While there is no alteration planned to the wetland itself, there will be an alteration (filling) of flood storage capacity. a area to be filled, which is shown cross-hatched on the attached survey, represen cubic feet of lost flood storage capacity, defined to be that area below the 893.1 eleva . . To replace this loss, the survey shows the creation ..' ..� additional cubic feet of flood storage capacity, which will more than compensate for proposed area to be filled. (2) Any alteration shall not reduce the existing water quality enhancement value of a wetland under conditions of ultimate development, during both the 2-year and 100 year frequency, 24-hour SCS Type I distribution storms. Water quality enhancement value of a wetland shall be determined using methods approved by the City. As stated above, there would not be any filling of the wetland itself and there is substantial buffering between the home and the wetland to provide for adequate filtering. (3) Any alteration shall not reduce the existing wildlife habitat value of a wetland as measured using methods approved by the City. It is not anticipated that the construction of a house on this lot would reduce the habitat value of the adjacent wetland. (4) Alterations shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation. Removal of vegetation within a wetland zoning district shall be permitted only when reasonably required for the placement of structures and use of property. (Ord 602, 8-25-97) Sharp Wetland Buffer Permit 2551 Ridge Lane December 13, 1999 Page 3 The property owner intends to clear the site to accommodate placement of a single-family dwelling. It is anticiapated that some of the scrub tree cover adjacent to Long Lake Road will be removed and replaced with evergreens. (5) Alterations shall not adversely affect the water flow characteristics within the wetland as determined by the City. Water flow will not be adversely affected. (6) Storm water runofffrom a development may be directed to the wetland when in conformance with the Local Water Management Plan and only when substantially, as determined by the Council,free of sediment, debris and chemical pollutants and only at rates which will not substantially disturb vegetation or increase turbidity as determined by the City. This proposal would be in keeping with the Local Water Management Plan. (7) The proposed action shall not cause storm water runofffrom the development to take place at a rate which would exceed the rate or volume of runoff as anticipated by the City's Local Water Management Plan. The rate and volume of stormwater runoff from this house will not exceed that which was anticipated by the Local Water Management Plan. (8) The quality of water infiltrated to the water table or aquifer shall remain substantially, as determined by the City, unchanged by the alteration of the site. No changes are anticipated to the quality of the water in the water table with this request. (9) No part of any sewage disposal system requiring on-land or in-ground disposal of waste shall be located closer than one hundred feet(100') from the wetland. All on-land or in-ground sewage disposal systems shall meet criteria set out in Minnesota Rule 6, MCAR 4.8040,Individual Sewage Treatment System Standard A home at this location would be connected to the City's sanitary sewer service. (10) Waste which would normally be disposed of at a solid or hazardous waste disposal site or which would normally be discharged into a sewage disposal system or sewer shall not be, directly or indirectly, discharged to a wetland This standard would be observed. All of the above standards, while drafted more specifically for wetland alteration permits, are met with this proposal. Sharp Wetland Buffer Permit 2551 Ridge Lane December 13, 1999 Page 4 Recommendation: In recognition of the findings addressed above, the delineation performed by Arlig Environmental, Inc., the comments from Rocky Keehn of SEH and the field inspection performed by RCWD Inspector Tony Brough, staff has provided the Council with Resolution 5401, a resolution approving the Wetland Buffer Permit requested by Jamie Sharp, property owner of 2551 Ridge Lane, with stipulations. sJa)1 Ue C.c� James Ericson, Planning Associate " \ OQ O !t 02 ,A R-4 N N • P : ------------''">. ' ''' y PF Ch cS in (0 _.i.0 ' / 'fl co 49 01 In N N Cp co CD PUDN N N T---- ttZ%r N5COTAND C7RT co O N oco N N NR-4 N001 ,____ HZ i R_2 3(NO� :Di M } N .� .- OT—_ 'co N F 44 N. 27 Woo(0040 j `.0 _ 1n r�4 i s 5279 N ta (010 to a>� �,I� NNNNNN N N I N N ;N N ,N N N N N 27 ai ^,;1-. ,n n 1 ►•) o, m273 5260rii 5262 5 5297 .�r .t 1,t M e M N N? N O O �^--- co �0 �o ,o �o <o �o ,o <o co �0 �0 7 5256 5267 _____ 1 I 5287 26 N NI N { N1N, N ; NIN1 N; N NF 5256 LOUISA AVE 5_2_61 .r • o1, ¢ �N O. co; N; co, d,# o p 5250 52505255 5260 • 5277 �o€ r0 w 5 ill Iv- cNo l o n O 24• • 52441,"'.`.""o .� ., N N N N N N N N N N N N ?„ a. 147 . F.--03--01-7.i{ ; Z p 5249 n 1`.. © 03 °' u' N { M M Ni N ,- r- O w W - 5238 '_'"" .r .r 4 .r 4 v • .r N N N[ N NNS t-,,, • N N N N Ce ' 5243 N NiN N NIN N N 5-, 523 5237 CLEARVIEW AVE AVE " c9 1 �ONNo ' NaoA omiN 2 : O '.3N N "4N N g N CN N. (N " y ' 12� `_"aw1 - is Mai � " 111 2 � co c � NN{ N{NNNNNNNNN NN ; � 523 5226 • _ _. 5231 *iv .t .t d 5225` ' 5220r- Pill N N N!N N _..- ..--I5225 inof rri- n o, =, s.adv*I 5219 521 5219 N' N NgN PI Pi N N N, N, N RIDGE 05 i LANE 212` 521 ' 2 44/ 1 521.3 5212 COoo - o o f iN03 it o ign 1 NS 141, . _ 'N I ( ,a 5213 N4# 4 c F 1 M N W 1,0:1,0 N • N ,A N O N N N NL ^-7 N N N N N N N N .._.,.......� N N a N N N N N N L. <...� 206 5207 5206 5207 5206- ` rn ,n ,o, uo :-" 5206 ' 5207 ',0 a, i;31-72,--r:—.-•;.17,2) ,t 200 5201 5200 5201 W r520 � �2'+ N� N 1 (NI � ,n N •I 5201 N � � 4' I � 5175 WOODALE - 5144_ m.5151 N N N N N N N 148 5149 51481514-9 51 1, --- WOODALE DR �""" "" 5165 5152 5155 515 5155 513a 5149 5150 5155 '� 140 5141 5140 5141 5140 - -- 5132 _ �- 18; N-1 F 155 514 5141 5140 5143 - ::• 15141 514 5185 .132J 5133 .-5-1321513-3- 132 5133 51321-1 ---15145 0i` p 5126 5133 5140 5175 d 5170 5179 5125 5124 5125 --" a 5132 j 5135 5130,11_3_,...5 5120 "" 5160 5165 1241 _ __ 5_124;_ . 5135 I ---� 5125 w 5_136 5165 ' 116 5117 5116 5117 5116'.5125 5128 5131 5126 5127 p ..511 • 5117 4 5128 5150 515E : p . 5149 1 108 5109 . 5108 5109 51081_5115 5118 5115 5114. 5115 510 M •-::::::::::•'::-:•:•:•:•'• 5109 5120 5145 5140 514E Et --- --- 5130 513: 005101 -5'1-001-,i-570-1 �15105 5108 5107 5106] N iltif0 N N N N(5101 510 5135 _ )ODCREST o DR 510a510' 092 5091 5092 509 5092' 5091 5092 5091 co i 5092 N •• .t o 0 5_09_01_50_9: „� --�- ,n ,n ,0 5093 5090 Q86 5085 508 508 5085: 5085 50861508 -I-— pas Cl N ''''-------• 5084,50 508 5080 5075 5080 5081 01Q 5079 Z 50801 507• _508015079 op 5080. 507 p`' 5071 5070 5071 n s rnvsnf SA71 ., rn•fn. 007+ 0 507 507 5074 1 , anaa 5074: 5071 �• — Zoning Map Planning Case 577-99 Applicant: Jamie Sharp N4 Location: 2551 Ridge Lane L_ • County Rd. H2 74 313 74 437.4 :: 43 J1 4 . i .°2 1 ,:i Ilk 4V-1-1-V 1 ik:11,1,'4. A ..evi:,..„:ii:i . , NI - iii/ w—A . ,. 1 tv id c k.1:,. .:•....:igi I i `i CC7{ es / 74 .- r 41 till 64 r41 I 12 13 14 15 16 .N17 N I 3:IX'' ' . I �' .` � 293 AVE. � y I •' . Louisa Ave. .. .. .. - .., 77. loo A :74. :3q.jji i 0 60 �3 2 1 ri 0 1 s. :a :':41:: : ::. 6 5 4� O a r. p-0---- .,_�it•:::: a: '':X::' ': :::::: :• <, 3 -0-—2- ORAiN__ •.jeY':::",..,.•'••' :'z.;:;:f:::.:.:}: ::ti} I9 20 2I 22 23 24 A •w >1 :•:cle�c:;:::::::•:•:•: w ( ®R�,C11 5::::: ::• • ••:•,-.:•:•:•:.••••::::•:•:. AV El ',ii N •. :::`::•:• :::::: '. C%earview Ave. 86.4 816 *.:24::::::/:::::::.:::::::::::::.:i 25 24 23 K ��` 64 {'"•' ::f 22 2I 20 I9 1; :;i�Y . 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 4 4 45 46. 4 48 4 --- • - ..- - - • — - - - --- LA . - --41— • Ridge Lane .87 i0 N 134.95 " 8434 83 .. 8. - - ill h 7? h s r-1. r- 0• 0 �U 10 0° I I ••2 13 •��•• 14 61 15 16 " 17 • 18 4 f • Z 134.90 „y n .n r✓ 84 44 85 .. .. n .. .. 85 1 j 9 �„ 177 4 U4 E S tA -r,.E t 134.9/ � � 8 8 4 ea I$ 27 µ 26 n 25 24 23 22 21 20 M 134.9 5 r- 2 84'+s * - /1.9. 64 .. - .. 64 1 ov 0 14— � WOODALE ----DRIVE Woodale Drive /kr'3ot. ..� 7 - 7 /33 I 132. 132 60 131. 190.71 .90 --j-3`-L--"— 13 .-" O I 0 3 t N V1 e 1 A. 41 ' 12 1 ai 0 12 I 9 6 z : 6 • O ' � �_ . . . .___ . .- -' � . a 0 134.92 r 2 _$ �o O 2 II i 2 0 / 0 11 '2 0 i 5 - - 5 { -- I • _ _ C ' . 134.91 i 3 e3 *- __ _ _ Q •. m; 4 •,... 4 Q ° 10 3 0 �- IO 3 0 1 134.90 t 14 _ h .is 0 9 , 4 o 0 9 4 0 z - 3 -`� _ . 0 0 Wetland Map Planning Case 577-99 Applicant: Jamie Sharp JT Location: 2551 Ridge Lane 1 ?1 BOUNDARY SURVEY 1 ra 92-3 I AND ( PROPOSED HOUSE LOCATION 2551 RIDGE LANE CITY OP MOUNDev1EW I 1s IS 114 RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA 921 ' TST PIT A x 8 3k �13 9L3 9L3 1r r- 0 - -L9 I 1'I !ST PITS 9L2 91.6 691.9 1� 9L5 ' I 9L9 x TOT PIT C 915931 91.0 16 9L0 I EDGE OF WETLAND AS DELINEATED I1 5 •/• SY AUG GUST IR1 ENTAL INC 1 91.6 °Of I I I IJ12,1 H e rj r 1 X050 45.0 FOOT is • F1� DR*INAGE1-L -..j Y --- EASEMENT 7 it I RED OAK ESTATE= NO I g 3 1 .t, 91.6 I I :, ' Iu d I I I.t I 43 OI�O'� J 2 - `�' - 92X8 N89�59'45'E r9 1*t gr�� 1 894 10 I 115.15 mode 1" i llI x4 rs (92X11 1 I I I 2 •~ 1 N\ Edge of `1 I i 1 la I ( i I , 93x4 100-Foot 10 0 t s Buffer 1 1I III `' ) I ti I 2 'Q • 13.5 � I 1 !// ( 1 1 � \ 1 \ 1 �� 1 / ( ' PROPOSED I '// I e(- - -� u 1u \�I ELEEVVATIONS 1, ( Ix910 R 1 I TO SE SET F3Y OWNER 11 --3236-- r�I 6 r \....., \ f 1 ID Z z 4AI I 1 \ �— I I \ ice I 1 1 I I wi ewe \ `) j -4'-32.02--L. I 1 ‹T SETBACK LI i\ 30 /) / c2n e \ �\ 1 \ `\ ...(1.._// `� I p0 \ \ \ 90 `\'.r8'�'�. 94x9 13.41 - - -\\- -1— --- --%.J-- - - I \ \ 589759'45' -- --- __ J �\ \\ 11593 '1311.8-115,-- :��� UNDIMEDteIONED \ 115.12-mese 0 Y)', RED O ESTATES NO 2'`.-- - -� 95X2 Bltuminoue curb 93X.1 . 96X6 RIDGE LANE c✓vc yr lin.I1.rriw PKI ✓r.a.,I •- P.A..' ` . i BY ARL IG EWA I90MENTAL INC / 5 // AUGUST 5, 1999 ' 91.6 /i .. I / •541‘4,144310 vie e�as�.mos / t�uT X11�.� GuT p,..,.... . 4l 1904 .�if:Lei. i 41.51 24•01 • 0 FOOT q1, %ages lordImENmAE - • T 1 f4'1.82 S 3 ob. C ESTATES NO - _ 45 °180 \616 it 916 1 ` G UT 5.11w04., ego; 13.43 • to+µ. eut L 01.1.. I 'TbR'y41... Bq.03 011,41 .414 5 X141..4 (,p. • I N.1.4%.41640 t'I.0 o. wa4,.ir t Kst-u oevat- 49 ( ' t-11111 ( T 92 _ _ 92X8 N89759'45'E _. 9 I 15>C1 594 Is4x it 4 111,44'‘IWiliAawiligilh, I N ‘t_ i i i 3. ' 11 I I o I , . , .1 mak. 9 l�`►wY������N � I t I , 6'„ //. � I I It ( t t PROPOSEDqs.71••'?' 44•.4401to+***4::.Is.. 9 In It I 1 iretriti . .10 . •►�...'►�.� 1 43 _ J se, SP UV IMAM. , p4•,4141►..t♦ . • w ',I , wr+v-Kos* . . ��r'�►► �.0)� t ;tit 1 1,1/404iviciAityst.40.$ • ,: . ,iip 04.4 is:1 it 4#$400041$ I 2:1Frt mss 411 414. � I ,I I , T8—ACK L s+a"�- l U+ !AO" / t I - r 30 ; del l 13.41• — -- , ,,,, 1_. \--- — L -.._ — !►4x9 \ tet. ,\ ----: • \r_6891591454 — � v 115.93 O oda .`i \\ tjDIt1Eb 61ONEC 1512 "a. �, L:2=1%1E6 T 2 ^� . 2 RED o TE6 NO .... -� 96X6 . `' --51tumirou. curb 93X.1 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE,200 SEH CENTER,ST.PAUL,MN 55110 651490-2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION November 8, 1999 RE: City of Mounds View Development of Lot at Long Lake Road and Ridge Lane SEH No.A-MOUND9901.00 Mr.James Ericson fir-7,10.1) ;�-f f' ` ' V` r:\ Planning Associate i , L1117.7:'-; fI�f • City of Mounds ViewI/lL NOV 1 0 1999 2401 Highway 10 ,1 Mounds View,MN 55112-1499 f , � I Dear Mr.Ericson: We are writing in response to your letter,dated November 3, 1999,requesting us to review the development of the lot on the northwest corner of Long Lake Road and Ridge Lane. The property owner would like to build a home below the recommended building elevation of 895.2 feet. The recommended building elevation was the greatest of the following, either the Design Storm elevation plus 2 feet, or the Flood Evaluation Storm. The recommended building elevation for this area was determined from the Flood Evaluation Storm, which was a worst-case scenario storm for this area, a 100-year, 24-hour, Type II storm, under wet conditions. The Flood Evaluation Storm was used in areas where there was limited outlet capacity and storage,to set a freeboard elevation. Therefore,895.2 feet is also the flood elevation for this area. We would recommend not deviating from the recommended building elevation. The outlet for the wetland goes through the lot in question. If the wetland floods, the water will either go into the basement of the proposed house,or out into the street where it will sit because there is a low spot in the intersection. There will be nowhere else for the water to go. Historically, allowing a variance from the recommended building elevation will affect the next home owner who will question why they are having flooding problems,and why the City allowed the construction of this property when there were known flooding problems. Therefore, we do not recommend deviating from the recommended building elevation. If you have any further questions,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, r.Wits\. Beth Peterson Project Engineer BCP/sh/RJK c: Rocky Keehn, SEH F:\projects\mn\mound\9901\c\ericson.n08.wpd SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS,MN ST.CLOUD,MN CHIPPEWA FALLS,WI MADISON, WI LAKE COUNTY,IN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER NOV-10-99 03:35 PM i P.02 ARLIG ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. - -...._ "..... ,.-.........e%... ..... ...., 's.u.... ......,..N...{.g ....K'.r...........;.. . .. , ,i,1';..v;.ivy1' . -a. P.O. Be,x 1842. Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 1812 Phone No: 6 i 2/974-9850 To: Jamie Sharp Cedar Ridge Companies 'i rs �� i ; i j for submittal with plat as required 111.1 :: d M 1 01 From: Patricia Arlig r�;� 1999 ; �t a„,et tp‘, aertek...44.0%," Date: August 9, 1999 RE WETLAND DELINEATION MOUNDS VIEW,MN along the middle of the E edge of SE% SECTIONS 7, T 30N, R 23W Arlig Environmental was retained to delineate the wetlands at the property located at the NW corner of Long Lake Road and Ridge Lane referenced above. This site is approximately 0.3 of an acre on the north side of Ridge Lane. There is a single family residence on the adjacent property to the west. The area south and west is a residential subdivision. The property directly north is mostly wetland. According to the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act(WCA), wetlands must be identified and delineated using the guidelines of the FEDERAL MANUAL FOR IDENTIFYING AND DELINEATING WETLANDS(1989)and the Coles OF ENGINEERS WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL(1987). The available maps were reviewed prior to the field delineation. The Ramsey County SCS map designates the soil in the vicinity as Urban lam; Lino complex, which is not listed as a hydric soil in the USDA SCS publication Hvdric Soils of the United States and as Seelyeville muck, which is listed as a hydric soil. The NWI map(New Brighton quad)shows a large PEMC&PFOICd wetland basin in the vicinity. Copies of the SCS and NWI maps of this site vicinity are attached to this report. The vicinity(not the boundary line)of the property is highlighted on both maps. The wetland edge is usually determined to be near the point where evidence of subsurface water is within 12" of the ground elevation, where at beast 50% of the vegetation is hydrophytic and hydric soil is encountered. In the area delineated as a wetland basin, more than 50% of the dominant species of vegetation were hydrophytes and hydric soils were present. Typically, water levels are highest early in the growing season and get lower as the season progresses. The precipitation in 1999 has been above normal. For this delineation, I anticipated that water levels would be at least at normal middle growing season elevations. Evidence of soil saturation was found within 12" of the surface in the soil pits at the delineated wetland edge. I visited the site on August 5, 1999 to delineate the edge of wetlands on the property. It was approximately 80°F. I found one wetland at the site. There is a drainage easement along the 99044wet CedarRidge,Mounds view NOV-10-99 05 :35 PM P.03 • west property line. An open ditch that conveys water from the main basin of the wetland and into a culvert that is part of the City storm sewer system and of that drainage easement. The area along Long Lake Road is an embankment that slopes down to the wetland edge. Most of the site is wooded with Oak, Buckthorn and Boxelder trees. There were a few deep (3 or more feet) soil test holes that had been drilled on the site in upland areas. They did not exhibit wetland soil characteristics or hydrology. A path through the property appears to be used for a bicycle course by neighborhood children. The wetland is located along the north edge of the site and extends well beyond the property to the north. The preliminary determination of potential wetland edges was based onvegetation and topography. The soils were tested by digging holes to a depth of 40" using a narrow bladed shovel at upland and wetland locations. A soil probe with a 3/4" opening was also used to retrieve soil sample s for inspection. Soil colors were determined by matching them to a Munsell Soil Color Chart. The soils were examined for hydric characteristics such as: low chrome, organics, mottling, gleying, and moisture. Soil samples were observed at points inside the basins with some wetland characteristics, at the basin/wetland edge, and into the upland zones. Soil pits were marked with orange stake flags labeled "A" In the wetland, "B" near the wetland edge, and "C" in adjacent upland. Conditions at the soil pits are described on attached Data Forms. " I placed wire stakes with pink flags at the edge of the delineated wetland on this parcel. Wetland 1 is a Type 3 wetland that is mostly on the adjacent property to the north, The delineated edge of the wetland is mostly at the base of trees and shrubs. It has the ditch and culvert at the west side of this property, as described above. There are likely other culverts at the perimeter of the basin at locations beyond this property. It is a large basin with reed canary grass and willows in the basin and dogwood and jewelweed near the delineated edge, Other vegetation including woolgrass, and joe pye weed was found. There was standing water in the ditch and in pockets within the main basin. It is designated as wetland on the NWI map and the soils in the vicinity are labeled as Seelyeville muck (a hydric soil). I placed flags at the wetland edge beginning at the culvert at the south end of the open ditch, moving north along the east edge of the ditch and then east to the toe of the slope of the embankment of Long Lake Road. I have sketched and highlighted the approximate location .of the wetland onto a plat map provided by Harstad. That sketch is attached. The surveyors should prepare a scale drawing showing the location of my delineation flags including pink ones at he edge and the orange ones at the soil pit. That drawing should be submitted to the LGU with your permit applications. You are required to avoid wetland impacts if possible. If your plans include grading in the wetland basins, a Wetland Alteration Permit Application and a mitigation plan will be required. Please contact me at 612-974-9856 with any questions regarding wetland issues for this site. NOV-10-99 05 :36 PM P. 04 • • SCS map Cedar Ridge Homes Mounds View, MN Ramsey County w 14 4; • J r .iJajt Jam,,Y1 ilh••IC; ,e, F L 1• am a, 'i. •�..)• • ;' •, J FI /1 ••% •\ T7r-t.�iy� '�+ ;•Ai5..''Vit i'y '• 3,,1, ,'•'.4S. •� T 'I. -...,..▪ 7'. 1 ..fir ▪ w; :: .Ifs'' 1y' •a7 ''/ R 2 rY .•'km , .. ,Y.. • •. �:• i (!-•1�., . •r!wi'M�j.WO.':•.•,• .•„•••' •,,.'.<i:••• • 1939 . • 'O T'.,,. .7-44417:, .'''?,., t . . "'. . }.•tip ,.1 , il•, . • • :8588 ",.,.� Y.,r.;^"�0 `�.• ; '~ .�1•'_._`,!-” :e .•b•• ;�. r•� ��••�1• :'� 4, 'r 1 .:1, 1.:::': '1•. �:..Y 1t•''' ' x.: ••t.:''....t,y� tee,,•• , '''g': T.%• T"1"' �,� 5 � •� t ..••.. ':. +/y�1.i.`,r��rs�x' ••r'.�,M[��.y6'•• 'Y.�y r• ,Yy hw l'�t.{�'.k yY i}•�'1.f I. ' K�/ +11` �, �w V i '•'' F''rii•�••t.l+. i.�i j�'. ,24...-,,,y�y! 'r 1`•♦ • ' :J' e " py fp' ., "' . lo TA.. • -4 • •. „•• •,.' • • . -;1"; ,;::w, 8 •• •0 ./s:K fk4014.4.4. v. y ' •tel*' "Yf" tg'r • 1_rt'f •'•r•'5�.-' :, ,','4. ^ • "..lcj•j �•.<•,„r i•i" •re ".'4,'' � ' _'W L. r �+r� �f? y,i.1; I y' r343u 3t +}'�+,:;%•4,,- I� i • k��"' � i... • 1_ .•. T• 11'+9 ' .! :•,r •,ai • 'A �73• •• irA �'• '_ � . 't" k.,t . I S.s 1—r--.15R ..pts ,� �•..•ri ,':.',4•;,.;;.' t .......p27.,...4:11:?,+,. ., ill ,*IIII 'fi1 • 'i'ixt• .�'[. ' �. i,M,.J. ''•!^'r. ', ,"•• .h't(,lr••;01i';k ,_▪ '"" :• 1q• '. •-4. t ti :. ` • roti`; rt ^� ..e/,.: �,: 7i f �Jv +••+t:; • �7.: ,1�� i ASF_ i'"46."i • ..� '•�. ` 7 . .,'„•�.. I' i. I.+Y ••.4 � NI,A,'i..T A 4•i ' .••0•''Oi%' �' , . : or • • • al :4.4.. it, ' J •.+Y • • •1.. y�_' ,..,'i-•••r• ' •�., • .•".JS...'i•,• 1'•�• ,,4 .....:,:.t..7. ' .'• '.•J,r„u.w-.. •M0-71-,' .W.W. --% r .:‘,4„....„:„.. ' , E ,raw y, r ;I n'...,N I4 r '• %' • ';7' (t►� ry� ,Yr„ '',c..:.1--. : 1 '• / .. !�k '' i}J 1:',• ii.•,, ,t .1 ;-f,..,1,':ri.” ; ,r "�5` ts. :},.4:f` 1 v .,�•:t '`. a •.., - r+', ,.1 ?. all 1 '.4 •'.a:''rr ;:r•. 'I 4t• '. . '1 • M''1' • .t' y'..9,9i1L•TM .'•.r' i .....,1.,...4161:,..:: !'�- �' wt� V ` •7'. .L r►�O"� A11' A,fj • •i! Via .T.r '.•tiI '•; , r i '�i' Ng NS 4 µ,, }� ' tl�� is : ;�r1Y ti 'I i� .k'air ,: :' gy • �i>:'�' '+-1. '1�Iw R,t {71SL�1 • •Y z ,:; • .i:r . • • .•.: ;y,�,, •, j'�' 4 `t , lr.i,of �. !':'., :a� t �n14 ,y� .77 t; y' :1”14.4.°4F-4: t ,'3 i.: A y ...,:,..„14.i � �,�. , p. .1 4.94;1 , .�,.. , tt �.` R. 01,•t: Y [' : AI.l .10.01.•,,,,14 1 ,.,•v1.{ ti .' 1TI � • ,�' 4 (1` ::1•,, Vii'•4 F•' •`.ir:r • ' •�,',•r,:Wp:ir..�" # . iy�j': 70 • • ri 11 ; '"1.4' ; ,i•ii, y,:.:' " '.• •• .+. 6.. 0;10727,„,''two• :1 r ..o''' :•�.., .,4,p'f.,:a, .14_,,I..F>. ,/ w. :fie. . •• .. Y•: �.n,». M4•It ,yl •1•.t. •,.:',•••. ?? ke ....,...,,,,r-..„‘•.-7.4.;/9 v „2....-;44,!6,- ' w .,.: stir w r , • i34p`'• • ".• 1,,ti�t '� '- ;' +, SII ., "'atltivYY '�'� .tt. . '.+ t I' lt• ru' ' .'.**".,'Y:it ;,.. '. � all. .L �� i • i '::,7*" k .',, • �4 ati:•%1 Aj .i •• . " ,�. : 1. . I01 , r • #. 1i•,. r, .l.. •TH Y. ,4 .l, „fp .. r/41:,., MI • K• 11 r y' ,.:4 J• •' '';.ti:1, .•1 ..4" _ ,iL`. �y'. ,. ,J i ..7'S::..,•,..:18. J.: t ,y.'•p•,'� `�tb'•'r'S• 11 540 Seelyeville muck 863 Urban land—Lino complex NOV-10-99 05 :37 PM P. 05 NWI map CEDAR RIDGE HOMES MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA New Brighton quadrangle r-r. 1 . 1 .fr. - il • s II' •it iii * * ; • • II . IL . ..,. . • . .. ,....,.......A ..1.11• I 1=i1E011511•;* .W111.-. . • r - , ,1 ....-' - ri. ifiliso owe 111 .' ' .,. $ •.1 . 3, piarclil' ' 2:„ill i' • it _ _ ....,:,... , „ . . 1 i* „ i,„_ , ri r II II p 0 1 IS , al •I Ilh rtrill. • . 1 a i Jo . . .v g.ili II' .,•:. ,10-,s ..-4-1-ili 'a ..ir .. .„ 1 :li I •;II- 1 ' _ ,, '.P.:N*111L-"HitSfea'...r. .\ \ '''‘.... 1 : ......).(`al :III 1 4 • • •-.. Ste ii •• l• 1 • II it 1'4'4 * ' . i:ji I 4 • • I i 1 . 11 li 01 PEMC 6ErA 4 v : ;Ertl/wk.. Iv, • i M 6 PUNs,BFx /- gsiC \ •• ............................ 1 .s. _. ,„ PEMCA TVI 0 - ..NDS '\-- ' I EW 1; , • ,14) .... .r. ii s , .. , , . ..„,,,,. .. . I ....4•44,....a.sbur imm••=1•Er..raaambwa.maerm,,m1,+1, w • ' '\ '•i Pu;Fe..., .tit •. i.I 4.1 0 r%• II • * ' a 01 , ',.. WT41. I.' !I .0 . . ti i .. .Ii ip i•:•_,. . 1 • a".. . , 1• . . I, ,i \II. a .w. fo- • 1,,.. ... U 1, . if Si •i '1•11L4,,EMill • . 1 • 0 --- tr L.. ' , N';,,, q I . ..1 ' 71-1 3 •11 11 • ..s.ii..1 i •• . . •IC .4 ••NN'N/ • A • • I 6 •ilaj ilk, rs . , ,:• i 0 Ili t ‘ 6 . 1 I 4 1 RU8EnallOUBF 0 ) ... ;44 _ ....__ •• SU. ,..!',T I I I ........AFIr. al /...4; ('' • • 1 ‘ .lelibi4.•••••02 '34.. , 444 4\--."4•••1 . t OS 1 11 .1 s spill a 40....-../s. ;;''''' • ..sil • iv- "--" 1. ww i 1 ,w, gar.' iiii• .., 1 I * . * .0 it; la a!LA o TIVIe.....01 , • 1 - ,,,.... ) N. ,,,;... • ( .0 t_ c.,., ,.. . . „ . .. ,.., 1 .,, • , "L.,. :. , f 111111rAlltrg, :1. . '.0... 1 r.• . a , Vii . ..p. ....-\ . .... _t 5%'S, sr: • a. 'V . 0 V ' •"r,... % • . PFMC trip. _ow . V.:1,11 • / : I . • li '' • • ... .."„i,... .., ---...-.., . ... I = 1 I il . li "' 1111 ,..•••• tilraffilt— Ntilk.....• ' -. .4 . -. -• I A at' ra rs.= --..-, . to 7,i ▪ _ .....__ ... ... • .. . 1: c----:+-.41 - 11?de. • • ''' •.1 1il 6 Sa •• I . P.: IIK /Ilia r , ut 1'4 "..0.I .681, • A a 71.-is:/....:;,/, . •g : , •• s ..... :_ • 314.1 1. i ! .- . 1• I/ A . :',0; l.f',71 4, :',1 -.1--•se ill i 0 t 1 n . . 4 ii sem a . •.. ' ' e L_____ : , • w, A -trth i11 '.• s: a ; *•-•• '4t:. -t- ''''"..'---...c. 1 :11 . i •If' .. :.4 '• :: .:•. ••S''• ••41.. • . il• ,.. • o til : „i: . •,,, 'It to ii *.' 'IL IC -..'• • . .1 Ix, • 0 °If •• a • ''. . S. II , • :I ' ilkik 11111 . 1, i '' ----4 !t• •....• , , , 1: ii. • ,• 1 .1• . a .r. •• , ,,,,, • . Ps . -1• . ' .2" '': a : .rl 1 7F,.1! r!..41 .. •'• a 1 ps• s! • se a 11 1, .: w ... ..••• !—V-wz -" I ,r , - '..---'111 "."11111 "....."-. -.." - -11"; 1-.•,•7::;;P:v1 g, .=,-,....„,,,v,,' , :',„:, • '71k ,..... ,.. . , . . _ NOv-10-99 05 :38 PM P. 06 • DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Soil Pit 1-A Field Investigator(s); Arlig bate: August 5. 1999 County: RAMSEY Plant Community:Type 3 Site Information: Cedar Ridge Homes Plant Community at this Point:Type 6 characteristics Mounds View, MN MN DNR no NvVI PEMCd/PFO1Cd Environmental conditions at the plant community: Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been sipiificantly disturbed: Yes ,•L_ motile in dredne spoil are(, Comments; Ditch on west edge of site conveys water from the area and the basin into a culvert (all part of drainage easement Lon Lake Road on west ed:a o the wetland. - r _•. ._....uas.-. „......_..., ,..a: ,....,. n_.)4..',1. a.•u..��x T,he1�! 1y S�dr ditch h 8ila/I7Litetweb l the road, andb. ..d basin. • TEiI'+1�i DOMINANT VEGETATION Common Name Species Name % Cover Indicator S:a:us Stratum 1.Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea 40• FACW+ grass/herb 2.Jewelweed Impatiens eapensis 35% FACW forb/herb 3.Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 15% FACW+ shrub 4.Wild cherry Prunus spp? <10% FACU shrub 5.Trembling aspen Populus tremule <10% FAC tree/shrub 6. Slippery elm Ulmus rubra <10% FAC shrub 7. - S. 9, Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100% of domittauts Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?Yes N.) Rationale: More than 50% h dro•h es ditch nearb has ilowin 3” dee• water, duckweed in stagn.at areas il. i� sY �' 1` '..a .� { I na. ! .�e.• 9•.'f.:. r:.t t- a" ,r #( . � .`t 't t r - .ri-; .r.. r _..I ,.LJr..¢.C.0 rL,la.:r,Cu.l u•, xlf IE tYILL.... .., ' .,.� #•.. •... .jr._ ::. _ tin i'?n�"'a''�'t t444e.,.-.r,t..b;.11•..,,..11 SOILS Series/phase: Seelveville muck Subgroup: 1'vnic barosattrists Is the soil on the hydric soils list?Yes,Th-_ No Undeterntincd Is the soil a Histosol?Yes Histic epipedon present? Yes No x Is the soil: Mottled?Yes_ No x Colors: Glcyed? Yes x No— Matrix Color: 2/1 on 10YR in top 5". then 3/2 Other soil characteristics: peaty/mucky, some clay Is the hydric soil criterion met?Yes_,� No-+ Rationale: On ma• as wetland /ow chronta or mile _ Y„ r_ q-. ri — ^:ja t{7LCt :r,4a M].Jt• - �• i.i?,. ��a � i; 774 'i'1;1 s -4 1 i._.1 f` r 1 a;..•3`•u.L;i f 1 ( }r, 4 ;1 fy +l' s�( �t'r e,� ?x.�;.• {� � t -z �C' .(,m•.„. ; i� I if, . x ,.:. ,. ....e .a.: r•{ r II J `'. %. t a ... d• �r..6_..16uJ.a57�3..�tY 1t D:. .r �. t+.2ae .. .. HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated?Yes.�_ No Surface water depth: "landing.water 5" dc_;D in ditkncarby Is the soil saturated?Yes X..` , No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole; not found in nit.veru damp at 15" List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:this area may be dredge spoil, h it sLat:�y feel Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?Yes x No_•__ Rationale: Water within a foot of surface JTJRISDICrIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes,x Rationale for jurisdictional decision; On NWI , and ALL PARAMETERS MET NOV-10-99 05 :39 PM• P. 07 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD • . Soil Pit 1-3 Field Investigator(s): Arlig Date: August 5, 1999 County: RAMSEY Plant Community: Type 3 Site Information: Cedar Ridge Homes Plant Community at this Point:Type 6 Mounds View, MN_ MN DNR no NWI FEMCdIY O1Cd Environmental conditions at the plant community: Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been si:Itificantly disturbed: Yes _g_,_ No _ Comments: sec 1-A f_ ,?�Q'S,l , 311.111 .,_..•Jb,....-.7a1� ::1._:2,_-°.,!..,:-,.. -Al..•r,....itr::Wrdu ••:.t J _. DOMINANT VEGETATION Common Name Species Name % Cover Indicator Sta:us Stratum 1.Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 35% FACW-t- shrub I 2.Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 25% FACW forb/herb 3.American raspberry Rubus strigosus 20% FAC\i4'- forb -- 4. Reed canary grass ?haloes arundinacea _ 10% FACW-t- i4 !rass/herb S. Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartics <10% FAC- shrub 6. .. s. — 9. 1 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100% of dominants Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?Yes a_ No ,,,,_ Rationale: more than 50% of dominant s.ecics are h dro'h es.bent trunks on some of the do*wood ,t „,';.:.',;;,'1 .,,. �5<•'"”: '�, `�•, :fin - '-7::.�:1.'wai::. +zT"„Sr 1 �.r .y � I; lc?. e e ' j 0{F •'..."fir:;:: y7 '' p, `: %.a S 1 r r '.i;: sec E'_.•" :i�i`;'Lt.'=L7_:? -:i3�1.•3a1!_TiC9i:S«,.af__:G:,_..,,n -.J:_« at–...: .b. SOILS Series/phase: Seclyeville muck * Su)gronp:a Tvuic borosanr;s s Series/phase: Urban land-Lino complex , S'abgroup:= _Aauic udJpsammeuts_. Is the soil on the hydric soils list?Yes x'` _ No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol?Yes_ No x Histic epipedon present? Yes No x Is the soil: Mottled?Yes No x._ Colors: taleyed?Yes No t Matrix Color: 2/2 on 10YR with some fibers Other soil characteristics: some fibers, sandy material Is the hydric soli criterion met?Yes x No�- Rationale: Near ed e of ma•.ed h dric soil . ound low chroma and or:anic material I ,... t- � -.>t.'Lp' ,:::;,,,:',:ii• r ,•il.�. � � � _ •. 1. ,. e 4 I nsi:;.!•:Se?i"Jl3re. Lh ifi._It ]A3 ]. ,N ~ ` e. -- . _ HYDROLOGY 1 Is the ground surface inundated?Yes_ No x Surface water depth: not found Is the soil saturated?Yes_ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: surface looks as_if ha. been wet in past l�e�ris..__ List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil,saturation: grade change, debris r Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?Yes x_ No— • Rationale:evidence of water within a loot of surface, .: .: ... • JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland?Yes x No_ ' Rationale for urisdictional decision: ALL . . ;.. PARAMETERS RAMETERS FOUND a: , •0,.t . . J ::1 :;5.t;, (,t,,rri v,ipf; .0L-kii $ ,,VA-Ft ::f417i� . _ { •- ' ixr (-'--41.i, r. � a 4•., ,.. .r S,,.7.. ,.,, !b :,i.th _:F,`I t,. ,1s ,, . --- c ..~,`r .-'t' �q,._._.. , , .. . , . NOV-10-99 05 :39 PM p. 08 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Soil Pit 1-C Field Investigator(s): Arlig Date: August 5, 1999 County: RAMSEY - Plant Community: UPLAND Site Information: Cedar Ridge Homes Plant Community at this Point: upland Mounds View, MN MN DNR no NWI no Environmental conditions at the plant community: Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrolog_: ('een si -lin can tly disturbed: Yes 4 No _ Comments: See 1-A, plus wooded and may have been filled in past r ... .F ,a•'. 'irt 4• _ t., ° .aPT r ° 4 r l+. r; _ *' ' • DOMINANT VEGETATION Common Name Species Name % Cover Indicator S a!:ts Stratum 1.Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartics 40% FAG j shrub 2. Black nightshade .Solanum nigrum 20% FACU- [io:b/herb 3.White lover . Trifolium repens 20% FACU-- I forb/herb 4.Boxelder Acer negundo <10 .e 5,American thimbleweed Anemone quinquefolia <10% FAC' I forb/herb 6.Solomon's Seal Polygonatum biflorum <10% FACU herb/forb 7. 8. 9. _ ...� Percent of dominant species that are OI3L, FACW, and/or FAC 0 % of dominants, Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?Yes No x Rationale: Less than 50%h dro.12 es . ....... ......:... :•r.: .r... ;.... .ni} ..rx t!R t .atefib, °' i w•.7��t4 'E :}1::..'�•:!« °'i�r.-•tni •........'_..e.iL.,...1 P . '} , ': .#‘`'p::i i ...,...-. a..... .. __�. ... ...,..1 SOILS Series/phase: Urban land-Lincomolex Stabgroup:2 Aauic udipsa^: cuts ._...._— .. Is the soil on the hydric soils list?Yes_ No x Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol?Yes— No x Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled?Yes Na Gleyed?Yes No x Matrix Color: 212 on 10YR in ton ". then lenses of 4/3 mate 'a Other soil characteristics: sandy loose material, @16" below surface decaying leaves (perhaps :iia in .:ti' en more sand Is the hydric soil criterion met?Yes_ No t� Rationale:Not on list, no indicators �nm :>*-�[`. '.p!;,:5.: : �d:}.::t.Jy;.f.:r."i.u:,:r itf .:'at •..y.f,Si?:4�. ..1Z.;,wy,./ at `�+"f".". �+.fr -erj°S ` :. ... . '.i.�. •..'a:i'a'"•..•:•;:11}bt'S'�'!st..'! ....r�..+.�}fc L!...:_t..l,�:'•.,...:�iw:IY.4•-..:./K£�,i::....: ^. .r r�i,...G.T. HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated?Yes_ No x Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated?Yes_ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: not fougd List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: elevation above grade cbt t>,.., on s;: !, Is,the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes_ No, X Rationale: water not found within a foot of surface _ ------- JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland?Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: soil and hydrology PARAMETERS MET NOV-10-99 05140 PM P.09 • DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD :;oil Pit x Field Investigator(s); Arils Date: August 5, 1999 County: RAMSEY Plant Community;UPLAND Site Information: Cedar Ridge Homes Plant Community at this Point: upi:: d Mounds View, MN MN DNR no NWI no Environmental conditions at the plant community: Has the vegetation, soils,and/or hydrology disturbed; Yes No Comments: Appears to be old swale,Long Lake Road Gust east)has been resurfaced and there is :.b;,gs:t_: .nd storm sewer. ••arentl draiva;,e sli t1 altered, stonnwatet diverted to the storm sewers stem away ro ti a ti ti ) •.P.f ,• §- , • .1 •. `r . •�.d•..,�1'f 2, f .. .. 1,.T i3b ;t:.15? .� r.•.:�.-•r.e�3 ii%.; St,... . �� ic+,. DOMINANT VEGETATION Common Name Species Name % Cover Indicator Stacy Stratum 1.Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartic:(small,now growth) 80% FAC- 2. 3. 4. S. 6. �.,. 7• 8. 9, Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW,and/or FAC not dominants Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion mct?Yes Nx Rationale: Less than 50%h dro•h es area has been scoured in .ast ve elation is s•arse .-,••,C(i"��, �.��Cd:..f�r .�•.:`��i t1'f. .+ �tar ..., d..t.by ai ti{!_.tr. -��i..,. :1 � . .. r.�- 'i.i'7:...._.�..........,.. . SOILS Series/phase: Urban laud-j ino ctnalex (edge Of Stclvevillt on moot Subgroup:' :A Is the soil on the hydric soils list?Yes, No x Undeurtuined Is the soil a I•listosol?Yes No�_ . Histic epipedon present? Yes No x Is the soil: Mottled?Yes_ No x Gleycd?Yes No x Matrix Color: __(_2 on 10YR in ton 5". then unevelehanue to 4/3 material Other soil characteristics: sandy loam Is the hydric soil criterion met?Yes- No Rationale:Nor on list no indicators r�«f, ..r. t 1f4:i5'i P...{i.p'• '!!:•11..r<'•,4tt 't,`!,.t{a • �; _ 7J.;3-;,! ....,..... c �' ,.4±4 `•'h,._......_....,_...... - .__ ,..... -.i�:�:-;,.. ...� .;-�?'•.`..c—,.`•'is.;ifat �:�,r_,.';�S• �i.:'�.�i,i:u�.t�aru. , _,o, t_�.,�3,.._. HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated?Yes No x Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated?Yes_ No 2(___ Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hale: not found within 24" nit List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:impacted by past grading in Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?Yes+ No X Rationale:water not found within a foot of surface – --- JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland?Yes— No.� Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Near wetland soil area an maps, but PARAMETE1u r.'•E 99O44wetDamForm Mound9View NOV-10-99 03:34 PM P.01 y .. PLEASE TAKE NOTE!! poi Cedar Ridge Homes 7605 149th Avenue Ramsey, Minnesota 55303 Telephones (612) 323.1000 Fax: (612) 323.7171 DATE: 9- 19 PLEASE DELIVER FAX TO: NAME: LA j. A / A t, y, I114'1, 17d)1411.4 DEPARTMENT: FAX NUMBER: 71y 31/( >- TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: MESSAGE: Fy/ 14 IF TRANSMISSION DID NOT GO THROUGH, PLEASE CALL 323.1000. THANK YOU. RESOLUTION NO. 5401 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLAND BUFFER PERMIT FOR JAMIE SHARP, 2551 RIDGE LANE, PLANNING CASE 577-99 WHEREAS,Jamie Sharp has requested approval of a Wetland Buffer Permit for property of which he is the owner, legally known as: Lot 49, Block 1, RED OAK ESTATES NO. 2, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the above-described property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential; and, WHEREAS, said property is located within one hundred feet of an identified wetland; 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,the Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the Delineation report prepared by Arlig Environmental,. Inc., and has found the delineation to be acceptable; and, WHEREAS, no development activities or disturbances of any kind will occur within the wetland itself; and, WHEREAS,the entirety of the proposed house and portion of the proposed attached garage encroaches into the 100-foot buffer area adjacent to the wetland; and, WHEREAS, representatives from SEH, the City's engineer, have reviewed the delineation report and have determined that the home and the resulting stormwater runoff will have a negligible impact the wetland. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the Wetland Buffer Permit for Jamie Sharp, 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. 3. The minimum floor elevation of the home shall not be less than 895.2. Resolution 5401 December 8, 1999 Page 2 4. Any loss of flood storage capacity(area below the 893.1 Elevation) shall be replaced elsewhere on the lot at a minimum 1:1 ratio with the affected areas clearly shown on the Grading Plan, including the areas of fill listed in cubic feet. Grading Plan will need to be approved by the Director of Public Works. 5. No grading shall be allowed within the City's drainage easement along on the property's western boundary. 6. Construction erosion control measures designed to limit soil loss from the development site shall be installed as approved by the Director of Public Works and maintained during the duration of the construction, not to be removed until graded areas have been sodded or revegetated. Adopted this 13th day of December, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator N:\DATA\GROUPS\C OMDEV\DE VCASES\577-99\5401 CC.RES RESOLUTION NO. 5399 ADOPTING THE 2000 PROPERTY TAX LEVY AND GENERAL FUND BUDGET CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the City Council conducted numerous meetings, made available detailed copies of said budget and published summary information on the proposed 2000 Budget in the City newsletter; and WHEREAS,the City Council held a public hearing in accordance with the State of Minnesota Truth In Taxation requirements on the proposed 2000 Budget on December 6, 1999; and WHEREAS,when the Fire Improvement Bonds of 1991 were issued, the City's 2000 debt service payment was scheduled to be $100,776,however, due to changes in the allocation of costs between participating cities, Mounds View's actual 2000 debt service cost on said bonds will be $73,755. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the following appropriations for the calendar year 2000 are hereby approved: GENERAL FUND: Amount City Council $ 93,672 Advisory Commissions 7,270 City Administrator 123,769 Elections 21,444 Central Services 392,952 Finance 156,200 Community Development 307,564 Police 1,441,870 Fire 177,569 Streets 341,241 Fleet management 110,813 Recreation 130,340 Parks &Athletic Fields 260,844 Forestry 56,180 Social services 15,667 Contingency 51,162 Transfer To Other Funds 25,000 Community Center 50,000 Fitness Program 4,200 Fire Bonds of 1991 Debt Service 73,755 Total General Fund $3,841,512 Resolution 5399, Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that following property tax levy for 2000 is hereby approved: General levy $1,695,897 Fire Improvement Bond levy 73,755 Total 1998 property tax levy $1,769,652 and the City Clerk-Administrator is hereby directed to notify Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota of said 2000 property tax levy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that Attachment A,the 2000 budget and long teen financial plan detail are hereby incorporated with and included as part of this resolution. Said resolution was declared to have been duly passed and adopted this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator /0I/ RESOLUTION NO. 5406 ADOPTING THE 2000 BUDGETS FOR FUNDS OTHER THAN THE GENERAL FUND CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the City prepared and made available detailed budgets at City Hall and published summary information on the 2000 Budgets for funds other than the General Fund in the City newsletter; and WHEREAS,the City Council has considered said budgets. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the following appropriations for the calendar year 1999 are hereby approved: FUND: Amount Water $1,008,923 Wastewater 1,328,568 Golf 1,087,824 Cable TV 63,845 Community Center 251,572 DARE 2,100 Forfeiture 3,000 Economic Development 465,205 Recycling grant 27,020 Special Project 90,500 Street Lighting 69,410 Surface Water 131,380 Vehicle& equipment 47,500 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that Attachment A,the 2000 budget and long term financial plan detail, is hereby incorporated with and included as part of this resolution. Passed and adopted this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator 1 I /4 RESOLUTION NO. 5405 APPROVING 1999 TRANSFERS AND BUDGET REVISIONS CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota WHEREAS,the City adopted budgets for various funds for 1999 which included interfund transfers for various purposes; and WHEREAS, the City has approved various activities with funding coming from previously established reserves or undesignated reserves. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the following budgeted transfers for the calendar year 1999 are hereby approved: From T o Amount Water Fund General Fund $ 64,500 Sewer Fund General Fund 38,690 Vehicle &Equip General Fund 6,000 Special Projects General Fund 90,000 General Fund Vehicle & Equipment 25,000 Water Fund Vehicle & Equipment 30,000 Sewer Fund Vehicle & Equipment 30,000 General Fund Community Center 50,000 General Fund EDA 10,000 Special Projects EDA 10,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following 1999 budget modifications are hereby approved: General Fund 1. City Council-professional services: Increase by$55,000 for airport litigation&increase in contractual cost of taking minutes of meetings; funding from reserves & other local governmental revenue. 2. Other local governmental revenue: Increase by$6,000 for assistance from other cities for airport legislation. 3. Central services—legal: increase by $15,000; funding from contingency 4. Central services—other professional services: increase by$5,000 for arbitration costs; funding from contingency. 5. Central services—legal notices: increase by$2,500 for cost of printing Ordinances and other legal notices; funding from contingency. 6. Community Development—building inspection contractual: increase $25,000 for cost of building inspections above normal year, close out old files, and review & inspect projects from prior to date of contract; funding from increase in building permit revenues. 7. Building permit revenue: increase by $100,000. Resolution 5405,page 2 Passed and adopted this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Clerk-Administrator Item No. /Q Ci Staff Report No. Meeting Date: December 13, 1999 Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Title/Subject: Resolution Electing to Continue in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Date of Report: November 29, 1999 BACKGROUND Mounds View has participated in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act since 1997. Each year each metropolitan community must decide whether or not to continue in the program. Each community must annually pass a resolution in support of the program. Each city must also demonstrate that they have spent on affordable housing initiatives an amount equal to or greater than the Affordable and Life Cycle Housing Amount (ALHOA) calculated by the Metropolitan Council each year. If a City does not spend an amount equal to ALHOA it must submit that amount to the Metropolitan Council or a local housing authority. Mounds View's ALHOA is $0 because we meet Metropolitan Council benchmarks for affordable housing. Participation in the program allows the City access to funding accounts set up by the Metropolitan Council. These include the Tax Base Revitalization Account, Livable Communities Demonstration Program, the Local Housing Incentives Account and Local Planning Assistance Grants and Loans. Mounds View and the North Metro 35W Coalition have received grants through participation in this program. Attached is Resolution No. 5395 supporting the Livable Communities Act and stating that the City of Mounds View will continue to participate in the program. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 5395 supporting the Livable Communities Act and stating that the City of Mounds View will continue to participate in the program. Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\CITYCOUN\CC-REP\121399 LCA report.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5395 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION CONTINUING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 2000 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentives Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Funds or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, Mounds View has identified to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has adopted,by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for Mounds View; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 or each year(extended to December 31); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Mounds View hereby elects to continue to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 2000. Dated this 6th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: Dan Coughlin, Mayor (SEAL) Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator N:\DATA\USERS\Rickj\SHARE\LCARES2000.RES.doc Item No. /Q Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 12/13/99 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: City Remnant and Videen Parcels Date of Report: December 9, 1999 Background: At various times in the past year the City Council has discussed the status of the city-owned 1.5 acre remnant parcel created by the realignment of Edgewood Drive and the adjacent vacant 9.4 acre Midland Videen property. As you may recall TOLD Development Co. has expressed an interest in acquiring both properties so that they could construct a Walgreens store and an additional building that could be occupied by a restaurant or a clinic. TOLD has proposed trading approximately 7.4 acres of the Videen property for the 1.5 acre city-owned property. TOLD would relocate the storm water pond on the city-owned remnant parcel at their cost. TOLD has also indicated a willingness to contribute towards the cost of recreational improvements which could be constructed on the 7.4 acres. The City Council has referred this matter to the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission for input. The Park and Recreation Commission considered this matter on October 27, 1999. The Park and Recreation Commission generally supported the proposed land swap. The Planning Commission on December 1, 1999 passed the attached resolution also generally supporting the proposed land swap. TOLD Development Co. representatives will be present at the December 13, 1999 City Council meeting to discuss their proposal further with the City Council. If the City Council wishes to proceed with this matter a plat will have to be prepared to create legal parcels so the land swap can occur, and a PUD developed by the developer and submitted to the City for approval. Other zoning related approvals may also be required. Necessary Actions: Staff recommends that the City Council determine how or if the City should proceed with this matter. Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:\DATA\USERS\Rickj\SHARE\121399 TOLD Staff Report.doc MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 599-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION SUPPORTING TOLD DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND PROPOSED LAND SWAP WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review the TOLD Development Co. concept for the Videen parcel and city owned remnant parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the TOLD Development Co. (TOLD)proposal and made the following findings: 1. The proposed retail/restaurant/clinic land uses if designed properly are compatible with surrounding land uses. TOLD has indicated a willingness to design the structures and use building materials which are consistent with adjacent buildings. 2. The proposed development is isolated from residential uses. 3. The proposed land use is consistent with the future land use designation of the site as shown in the draft comprehensive plan currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. 4. The proposed use is consistent with the current zoning of the Videen property. Rezoning of the city remnant parcel would be required. 5. TOLD is willing to relocate the stormwater holding pond on the remnant parcel at their expense. 6. TOLD is willing to trade approximately 7.4 acres of land for approximately 1.5 acres of land. The City could use the 7.4 acres of land to protect the existing wetland, to provide additional recreational opportunities, and to provide stormwater improvements. 7. TOLD is willing to contribute towards the cost of recreational improvements on the 7.4 acre parcel. 8. TOLD will attempt to have the existing billboard removed. 9. The Park and Recreation Commission has indicated general support of the TOLD proposal. 10. The TOLD proposal is the best that has been presented and the developer is willing to work with the city to address all issues. 11. At this time the Planning Commission does not believe that the land swap would result in unacceptable costs to the City. The City Council should look at the total costs of the land swap. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission supports the TOLD concept and the proposed land swap. Approval of any specific development proposal should be through the normal city development review process after any required public hearings are held. The Planning Commission reserves the right to make additional specific recommendations through this process. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 1st day of December, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Attest: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PC TOLD Resolution 12199.doc /0 L RESOLUTION NO. 5397 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPOINTING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND CLARIFYING COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP WHEREAS, the terms of the persons listed below have expired or the seat is open due to a resignation; and Planning Commission Parks and Recreation Commission 1. Jean Miller 1. Mary Benz 2. Gary Stevenson 2. Gary Stevenson 3. Greg Johnson 3. Frank Silvas 4. Dave Long 5. Sherry Gunn Police Civil Service Commission Economic Development Commission 1. Robert Toborg 1. Jerold Kahn (Business) 2. Charlynn Robertson Airport Advisory Commission 1. New seat 2. New seat WHEREAS, each person whose term has expired has been advised that public notice of their open seat has been given; and WHEREAS, the Commissions consist of members appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the majority of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Council do hereby approve the following appointments and general make-up of the various Commissions: Planning Commission Parks and Recreation Commission 1. Jean Miller (exp 2002)* 1. Dawn Little (exp 2000) 2. Gary Stevenson (exp 2002)* 2. Theresa Lexcen (exp 2000) 3. Jerry Peterson (exp 2000) 3. Stan McDonald (exp 2000) 4. Greg Johnson (exp 2002)* 4. (exp 2002)* 5. Brian Kaden (exp 2001) 5. (exp 2002)* 6. Michael Berke (exp 2000) 6. (exp 2002)* 7. Michael Hegland (exp 2000) 7. (exp 2002)* 8. Ordeen Braathen (exp 2001) 8. (exp 2002)* 9. William Laube (exp 2001) 9. Rich Sonterre (exp 2001) M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Item XX--Reso 5397 Approving Commission Appointments 1 (Givonna Reed).doc Police Civil Service Commission Economic Development Commission 1. (exp 2002)* 1. (Business-exp 2002)* 2. Rita Goldhammer (exp 2000) 2. Rosemary Goff(Resident-exp 2000) 3. (exp 2001)* 3. Sean Walther (Resident-exp 2000) 4. Julie Olson (Resident-exp 2000) Airport Advisory Commission 5. Tom Field (Resident—exp 2001) 6. Wendy Marty (Resident-exp 2001) 1. James Harelson (exp 2001) 7. Cindy Carlson (Business-exp 2001) 2. Sharon Croon (exp 2001) * New or reappointment due to term expiration in 12/99 or due to mid-term resignation Adopted this 13th day of December, 1999. Attest: Mayor Seal: City Administrator M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Item XX--Reso 5397 Approving Commission Appointments 2 (Givonna Reed).doc /0 /2-) • ORDINANCE NO. 646 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 400, CHAPTER 405 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 405.03, SUBD. 1 AS TO THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 405.03, Subd. 1 of the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to Parks and Recreation terms of office is hereby amended by the addition of the bold and underlined language as follows: Subd.. 1.: Terms. Members of the Commission shall serve three (3) year staggered terms, with terms expiring December 31 of each year. In order to establish appropriate staggering of terms for the Commission Members, appointments to a term of less than three (3)years are permissible. Both original and successive appointees shall hold their offices until their successors are appointed and qualified. SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 13th day of December, 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of January, 2000. ATTEST: Dan Coughlin, Mayor (SEAL) Charles S. Whiting, Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney SJR-172989v1 MU125-1 I !© X/ ORDINANCE NO. 647 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PERSONNEL REGULATIONS AND AMENDING TITLE 300 BY DELETING TITLE 300 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND BY CREATING A NEW TITLE 300 AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 301.01 IN THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 300 of the Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended by the deletion of the existing Title 300 in its entirety and by the creation of a new Title 300, Chapter 301 as follows: CHAPTER 301 GENERAL PERSONNEL PROVISIONS SECTION: 301.01: Personnel Policy 301.01: PERSONNEL POLICY: The Council shall establish by resolution a uniform and equitable system of personnel administration by resolution for employees of the Municipality, which may be revised as necessary by amendments to such personnel policy resolution. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of December, 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. • M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Item XX--Ord 647 Amending Chapter 300 re Personnel Policies.doc SJR-172993v1 MU210-18 Dan Coughlin, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Item XX--Ord 647 Amending Chapter 300 re Personnel Policies.doc SJR-172993v1 MU210-18 X0-0 [DRAFT#1] ORDINANCE NO 648 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER BY AMENDING SECTION 3.01 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW AS TO THE CALLING OF SPECIAL MEETINGS BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, deems that Section 3.01 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View is hereby amended by the deletion of the language as follows: Section 3.01. Council Meetings. The Council shall meet regularly at least twice each month at such times and places as the Council may designate by ordinance. The Mayor or any two members of the Council may call special meetings of the Council upon . • • • • • : . • : • • . • •• • •• . • , . • . such reasonable public notice as may be prescribed by Council rule in compliance with the laws of Minnesota. The twenty- four hours notice shall not be required in an emergency. To the extent provided by law, all meetings of the Council and its committees shall be public, and any citizen shall have access to the minutes and records of the Council at all reasonable times. During any of its public meetings, the Council shall not prohibit, but may place reasonable restrictions upon citizen's comments and questions. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 90 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator SJR-172969v1 MU210-4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney SJR-172969v1 MU210-4 /D [DRAFT#1] ORDINANCE NO 649 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER BY AMENDING SUBDIVISION 1 OF SECTION 3.04 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW. THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, deems that Subdivision 1 of Section 3.04 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View is hereby amended by the addition of the bold and underlined language as follows: Section 3.04. Ordinances,Resolutions and Motions. Subdivision 1. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, by ordinance or state law, an affirmative vote of three or more members of the Council shall be required for the adoption of all ordinances, resolutions and motions. The votes of Councilmembers on any action taken shall be recorded in accordance with state law. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 90 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator SJR-125054v54 MU210-4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney SJR-125054v54 MU210-4 /O [DRAFT#1] ORDINANCE NO 650 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER BY AMENDING SECTION 5.05 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW AS TO THE INITIATIVE PROCESS AND RESOLUTIONS PROPOSED IN THE CITY. THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, deems that Section 5.05 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View is hereby amended by the deletion of the language as follows: Section 5.05. Initiative. Any ordinance or resolution may be proposed by a petition which shall state at the head of each page or attached thereto the exact text of the proposed ordinance or—resolution. If the Council passes the proposed ordinance or resolution with amendments, and a majority of the sponsoring committee do not disapprove the amended form by a statement filed with the Clerk-Administrator within ten days of its passage by the Council,the ordinance or-resolution need not be submitted to the voters. If the Council fails to enact the ordinance or resolution in a form acceptable to the majority of the sponsoring committee within sixty days after the final determination of sufficiency of the petition, the ordinance or resolution as originally proposed shall be placed on the ballot at the next election occurring in the City. If no election is to occur within 120 days after the filing of the petition, the Council shall call a special election on the ordinance ^r resolution to be held within such period. If a majority of those voting on the ordinance nr resolution vote in its favor, it shall become effective thirty days after adoption unless the ordinance or-resolution sollution specifies a later effective date. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 90 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. • Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. SJR-172971v1 MU210-4 Dan Coughlin,Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney SJR-172971v1 MU2I0-4 [DRAFT#1] ORDINANCE NO 651 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER BY AMENDING SECTION 5.07 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW AS TO THE REFERENDUM PROCESS AND RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED IN THE CITY. THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, deems that Section 5.07 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View is hereby amended by the deletion of the language as follows: Section 5.07. Referendum. Prior to the date when an ordinance or resolution takes effect, it may be subjected to referendum by a petition which shall state at the head of each page, or attached thereto,the exact text of the measure to be considered by the electorate. If the petition is found to be sufficient under the provisions of Section 5.03 of this chapter, the said ordinance or-resolution shall thereby be prevented from going into operation, and the subject matter of the petition shall be placed on the ballot at the next election occurring in the City. If no election is to occur within 120 days after the filing of the petition, the Council shall call a special election to be held within such period, providing the petition has been found to be sufficient. If a majority of the voters voting thereon favors the ordinance or-resolution contained in the petition, it shall remain in effect. If a majority of the electors voting thereon votes against the ordinance or-resolution contained in the petition, it shall be considered repealed upon certification of the election results. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Item XX--Ord 651 to Amend Charter re referendum process and resolutions adopted(Chuck Whiting).doc SJR-172972v1 MU210-4 Dan Coughlin,Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Item XX--Ord 651 to Amend Charter re referendum process and resolutions adopted(Chuck Whiting).doc SJR-172972v1 MU210-4 /0 s [DRAFT#1] ORDINANCE NO 652 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER BY AMENDING SECTION 4.02 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW AS TO TERM LIMITS FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE IN THE CITY. THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, deems that Section 4.02 of the Charter of the City of Mounds View is hereby amended by the deletion of the language as follows: Section 4.02. Subdivision 1. Filing for Office. No earlier than seventy days nor later than fifty-six days before any municipal election, any resident of the City qualified under state law for elective office may, by filing an affidavit and by paying a filing fee to the Clerk-Administrator in an amount as set by ordinance, have their name placed on the municipal election ballot. . : • • •• • •• _••. • , . • •. • • • . • . • • . : . • : . • • : • r • .. , . . , . . , • . : • • " : • • • ; r I I , • SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 90 days after its publication. • Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. M:\1999\Council Packet\I2-13-99\Item XX--Ord 652 to Amend Charter re term limits(Chuck Whiting).doc SJR-172973v1 MU210-4 Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney M:\1999\Council Packet\12-13-99\Item XX--Ord 652 to Amend Charter re term limits(Chuck Whiting).doc SJR-172973v1 MU210-4 /0• • D PETERSON . EasSON ENV:RONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. • December 3, 1999 Mr. Chuck Whiting City Administrator • City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN 55112-1499 - Subject: Proposal for Consulting Services Wetland and Land Use Planning/Facilitation Bridges Golf Course Area PEC Proposal No. 80-525 Dear Mr. Whiting: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal for land use and wetland planning and facilitation services related to the Bridges Golf Course area. As you know, PEC has been conducting hydrologic investigations on wetlands on the City's property adjacent to the Bridges Golf Course. The purpose of this investigation has been to delineate the boundaries of partially to effectively drained wetlands in the area, to allow the City to evaluate its long-term options for the use of this property. We are now in the process of finalizing this investigation. We are pleased to submit this proposal for wetland, stormwater management and land use planning services for this property. It is our understanding that the overall objectives of our work are to; (1) develop a series of conceptual alternatives for the project area which encompass wetland restoration, stormwater management, active/passive recreation, and potentially some residential development, (2) facilitate cooperative efforts among the Cities of Mounds View and Blaine, the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), and interested/affected property owners and residents in the planning process and, (3) assist the City of Mounds View in obtaining approvals for the implementation of the selected alternative. We have already met with the staff of RCWD to discuss stormwater management concepts that they are evaluating with respect to Judicial Ditch 1 and environs. We have also obtained a cost estimate from Westwood Professional Services, . • Inc. for carrying out surveying tasks needed to conduct our analysis. The project area that is the subject of this proposal is shown in the attached figure. Each of these tasks Hei;hts Road,Suite 100 a Mendota Heights,Minnesota 55120-1112 =+ 651-636-0151 it Fax>51.68 -0.69 .1 E-mail:Poch IcOP1=1,'iii_,Cl? ; : Ric'Ranirlc.,bfichiean(237)796-0903 a WWw.Petersonenv.cont Mr. Chuck Whiting December 3, 1999 Page 2 PEC Proposal No. 80-525 and their estimated costs are"discussed in greater detail in the following proposed Scope of Work. SCOPE OF WORK Task 1.0 Project Management Team and Schedule PEC will assist the City of Mounds View in establishing a list of interested agencies and individuals (potential stakeholders) to participate in and represent the various interests affected by the planning process. A preliminary list of potential stakeholders would include; (1) the Cities of Mounds View and Blaine, (2) the RCWD (including Montgomery Watson, the district's consulting engineers), (3) Sysco Inc., (4) MnDOT, (5) the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and (5) landowners/residents that would potentially be affected by development of the City's property or changes to Judicial Ditch 1. From the list of potential stakeholders, a Project Management Team (PMT) will be organized to facilitate the interests of the affected groups and to establish a list of issues and concerns, and goals and objectives for the successful completion of the project. PEC will serve as staff to the PMT and facilitate its meetings and presentations. It is envisioned that the PMT will convene four meetings, the first of which would occur during Task 1. This meeting would be held to: • Establish stakeholder involvement and project schedule • Establish project need and list of known issues and concerns • Develop list of project goals and objectives Cost Estimate $2,938 Task 2.0 Data Collection and Synthesis PEC will collect and synthesize existing data, analyses and studies that have been carried out in the project area. These items include but are not limited to; (1) the wetland delineation report prepared from PEC's hydrologic data, (2) conceptual development plans previously prepared for City property south of Trunk Highway 10, (3) stormwater management calculations and concepts for Judicial Ditch 1 prepared by RCWD and (4) locations of existing trails and other recreational facilities in both Mounds View and Blaine. These items (and any other relevant information that is found) will be compiled into an information package for use by the PMT. A second meeting of the PMT would be convened as part of Task 2.0 to: • Refine list of issues and concerns, goals and objectives from Task 1.0 • Present results of data collection and analysis Mr. Chuck Whiting December 3, 1999 Page 3 PEC Proposal No. 80-525 • • Present framework for the concept alternatives Cost Estimate $2,638 • Task 3.0 Development of Concept Alternatives • • PEC will work with the PMT to develop concept alternatives for future land use on the subject property. These alternatives will, to the degree possible, balance the needs and desires of the stakeholders. PEC will develop up to four primary concept alternatives which will address the issues identified and incorporate the goals and objectives established by the PMT. Concept alternatives are expected to incorporate options for wetland restoration, stormwater management, active and passive recreation, golf course expansion/improvement, and potential residential development. Concepts will be sufficiently detailed to illustrate distinctions between alternatives and will be delivered to the PMT in both presentation and handout formats. A third meeting of the PMT will be held as part of Task 3.0 to: • Present concept alternatives and receive feedback • Discuss the establishment of performance objectives, if necessary, for application and assistance in screening and rating the alternatives to select a preferred concept • Set date and discuss approach to Open House Cost Estimate $4,498 Task 4.0 Conduct Open House PEC will assist the PMT in conducting an informal Open House to discuss the approved project concept alternatives. PEC will assist in providing staff resources for the Open House,' presentation" illustrations, handouts, and. opportunities to receive public comments. Comments received at the Open House will be incorporated in the project record and will be considered, as appropriate, in the selected concept. Cost Estimate $3,210 Task 5.0 Refinement of Alternatives, Selection of a Preferred Alternative PEC will assist the PMT in the.screening and refinement of alternatives and in the selection a Preferred Concept Alternative. Input from the PMT and the Open House will be used to further refine the alternatives that most closely match the PMT'S project goals and objectives. If necessary to assist in the selection of a preferred solution, PEC will develop evaluation criteria to screen and rate the alternatives for the PMT. A fourth meeting of the PMT will be convened as part of Task 5 to: Mr. Chuck Whiting December 3, 1999 Page 4 • PEC Proposal No. 80-525 • Select the preferred concept alternative • Discuss implementation activities Cost Estimate $2,262 Task 6.0 Land Use Alternatives Report With the input and results of the preceding tasks, PEC will prepare a report with data and graphics documenting the results of Tasks 1.0 through 5.0. The report will also include recommendations for implementation scheduling and preliminary and final design of the preferred concept alternative. Cost Estimate $5,024 Task 7.0 Present Preferred Alternative to Planning Commission and Council Under Task 7.0, PEC will present the results of the PMT's work to the Mounds View Planning Commission and City Council(one meeting each has been assumed). Cost Estimate $2,272 Task 8.0 Regulatory Memorandum PEC will provide guidance to the City of Mounds View for obtaining regulatory agency approvals and necessary permits for the selected alternative. This task will include the preparation of a regulatory analysis memorandum identifying all agencies having permitting jurisdiction over the project and anticipated permit requirements. The preparation and processing of permit application packages will be done under a separate proposal and has not been included in this task. Cost Estimate $1,000 COMPENSATION The tasks described above will be provided on an hourly basis according to the attached Fee Schedule and General Contract Conditions for a total estimated cost of$23,842. GENERAL CONTRACT CONDITIONS The attached General Contract Conditions are hereby incorporated into and made part of this agreement by reference. Mr. Chuck Whiting December 3, 1999 Page 5 PEC Proposal No. 80-525 • We very much appreciate the opportunity to be of ongoing assistance with this project. Please feel free to contact us regarding any questions regarding this proposal. If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign and return one copy to signify our formal authorization to proceed. Best regards, iiiii' - • l twirl . .(• , Consulting,Inc. Ronald P. Petersen President Enclosures cc. Rick Jopke—City of Mounds View John Hammerschmidt—Bridges Golf Course 3' O O £ fA EA 64 d� 69 fl 3 d' Nt.yi y %" rant-,744A CN CD V rV w 4;Witz ttN 4.6Pg4ritriii $ z ,3 00 CO CO CO N 03 W r 1 w or �ZI � y ago y `• z r �� teh''Z 14174kfirilj d C ' ' ^ ? O .. •�.. c) '. x y m cu r7: e:• N ;r- na O r vv ' r .s � C im. sx' „'Q ' y , V „ C C C V y O N 'aL'{ 6x f0 A C ' O O CcyE, ami c o = E E 'cu ,": v '� ' N CO ami o ami ami v . " V ' �. i N M. tC) CO. N. CO • .. '4 z. n 69 • FEE SCHEDULE July 1, 1999 —December 31, 1999 • PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL Staff Member Position Hourly Rate CONSULTING, INC. Peterson,Ron President $125 Arndt,Jim Licensed Soil Scientist $125 Vande Water,Glenn Botanist $100 • Graham,Mike Senior Project Manager $90 Krych, Scott Senior Project Manager $90 Timpson,Mike Licensed Soil Scientist $90 DeRuyter,Mike Project Manager $80 • Doherty,Bob Project Manager • $80 Mackenthun,Jeff Assistant Project Manager $64 Krieger,Darlene Database Manager $64 Clerical $37 All direct project expenses will be invoiced at cost plus 15 percent. Mileage will be invoiced at$0.32 per mile. Testimony in hearings or court proceedings will be invoiced at 2.0 times normal hourly rates. CREDIT POLICY Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) has adopted the following policy regarding credit, invoicing and collection practices. These policies will be consistently adhered to except when special credit arrangements are made in advance. Such arrangements are typically appropriate in subconsulting situations where the invoicing cycles of both the prime contractor and the client are involved. Payment to PEC is not contingent on the client's ability to obtain financing or on real estate closings. We sincerely appreciate your cooperation. • 1. Standard credit terms are 30 days from the date of the invoice. If there is a question or problem with an invoice, we request notification within 30 days so that we can provide backup or make any necessary adjustments. 2. Accounts past due over 30 days will be charged 1.5 percent per month interest until payment is received,as set forth in our General Contract Conditions. 3. When any account becomes over 60 days past due,PEC's work on that account will cease until the account is brought current. • 4. When an account becomes over 90 days past due,a mechanics lien may be filed against property benefited by PEC's work. 5. When an account becomes over 120 days past due,legal or alternative collection action will be undertaken. 6. A retainer will normally be requested of new clients. The retainer amount will vary with the size of the project. • Fee Schedule 2 (1999)(7/1999) G:\Boiler\feesched\feesc997.doc 1355,Wenclota Heights Road,Suite 100 m Mendota Heights,Minnesota 55120-1112 651-686-0151 e Fax 651-686-0369 a E-mail:PecIncr0PETERSONENV om Pin 12,„;.k AAIrhinnn/9111 7cI-11on1 ® www-Petersonenv.com GENERAL CONTRACT CONDITIONS • PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK 1.1 Work To Be Performed PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,INC.(hereafter referred to as PETERSON)shall perform the services defined in the Scope of Services set forth in the Agreement into which these General Conditions are incorporated by reference (hereafter referred to as the Agreement). • 1.2 Extra or Out-of-Scope Work Any work requested by the CLIENT which is not set forth in the Scope of Services section of the Agreement will be considered extra,out-of-scope work and, unless otherwise agreed in writing,will be invoiced on an hourly basis using current hourly billing rates. 13 Project Information and Assumptions CLIENT will make available to PETERSON all known relevant project information regarding existing and proposed conditions on the site or sites which are the subject of the Agreement. Project information may include but is not limited to site plans,surveys, aerial photographs,written reports,previous wetland delineations,soils borings,past permits,and past permitting or enforcement correspondence. CLIENT will forward any additions,updates or revisions of project information to PETERSON as soon as such new information becomes available. Any assumptions used by PETERSON in developing the Agreement may be set forth therein. CLIENT acknowledges that the level of effort and cost of PETERSON's work may be changed should any such assumptions be found incorrect subsequent to the execution of the Agreement. SECTION 2: INVOICING AND FEES 2.1 Billing Rates PETERSON shall invoice the CLIENT according to the terms and rates set forth in the Compensation Section of the Agreement. . For extended projects that are being billed on an hourly basis,billing rates may increase on January 1st of each year at a rate not to exceed 10(ten)percent. 2.2 Frequency of Billing For projects being billed on an hourly basis, PETERSON will invoice the CLIENT monthly or upon completion of the work described in the Scope of Work section of the Agreement. For lump sum projects,invoices will be submitted after completion of the work upon which the lump sum cost is based. 23 Payment of Fees Payment is due upon CLIENT'S receipt of the invoice and will be considered past due thirty(30) days from date the invoice is transmitted to the CLIENT. 2.4 Past Due Accounts On past due accounts,CLIENT will pay a finance charge of 1.5%per month on the unpaid balance until the invoice is fully paid. If CLIENT fails to pay PETERSON within sixty(60)days of the date the invoice is transmitted,PETERSON may deem the CLIENT in default and may,without incurring liability,terminate the agreement and/or stop all work on the project until the default is cured. PETERSON'S termination or stoppage of work due to CLIENTS default shall not relieve CLIENT from its duty to compensate PETERSON for work done up to the date of termination or work stoppage. 2.5 Lien Rights PETERSON hereby gives the CLIENT notice that,pursuant to Minn.Stat.Chapter 514,it retains the right to file a lien against real property in the event of CLIENTS default on payments for environmental services performed with respect to the property which is (OVER) 1355 Mendota Heights Road,Suite 100 ■ Mendota Heights,Minnesota 55120-1112 a 651-686-0151 a Fax 651-686-0369 a E-mail:Peclnc@PETERSONENVcom Big Rapids,Michigan(231)796-0903 a www.Petersonenv.com ,D•'A ,,,-'` %i'i�.. t� - ` + �i �'� R - %< <•>K�tE ,i �C --,e,l---- - _•4 '�"t - !- r-- I'+-�1 i. - ,.r., � -,--_== • a _V't� s f , J i* i, „,,,%,-/--a-,' ,,, ry,,l ..„ .Y y3t1�.sry.. ,,+9 1 .J• ['y+` 1 `333,,,,74 L X4 frj 4'3n-%''.;..-4 2 a f} 4_. ! ^SxA"'"u',Zh ..•. +t l., tS,,..,),4,-„,r,A, r'. F f (r -2y . E• � "t W f .4 / , 4.'4'1'."..A.A: K '+ iw `'ri 1N i. }J 3 t � as ..,,$.1H-4,7, » sy °a 'f "t ` . ifF F __VN ,_-:.1 ,a ,-,,,g,-,-4„,',A,:,-''.1:,,,r,_:,,,.•,,yiySI ,t, � -3,,,..A,,:',„4,4,--:,,,•• �h ;va e;�' ,,••1•1 �.•'_.!=, ty r, t t "'�,ff sem a+t. y�"'' ”` `1�'c � � 1 4I w-Gz•• > yx , Sf `1§ .-.74-2;..„,•,• r' }f J1a • ,( ?,:•.);.-0,..,,,47,.-, 4 [ : rt .,,- atg . tE �•{�S A I,,1 : .g'' Y. c t if y "aUw ;+c4 4N-7,41,:-.7”Xfl X47,1 ! t �.➢+ 111 4 ti.23,-,,'1,.• ,.4„-:;„_,I•1...,,,,1 =, t .. 41 i ,A -x` fir" z t -t ! 1 -h ,r C r x }.i 3 c.. P.:-..X:.44- fir r r � +e t z'P: I` ) `�w���' `;!X��,!,�� 13.'� „r„, �.i _ w;-•.,:..\.,'-'4,,.,+ i ....., y;� 'yI"` r t4 i 01;:a y,s. ''�'44, .s- �'� ,,�,•:.""- 'c,I -;.A i4,21.;:r4;,;*,R %; 4?' fk ui>?!t. II, .: V, '.'y .1' 'yh 5 n` ¢',c s :Atf 1'' sd f;-{1 tl' a s 4,44 iii'' i' " r 4: v-,-,:k.'?: - „,-.4,4.-,,,,,,,,,,r1,*,!: by- t R�, 111t It, 1 : •-",,,,,,,I. ••, ., i i--' } j rYr:,..✓ 1. -+t 3"'a� y��. � .l' Bi4 G i�t L �CGi� !� .+ t fir,. b s..•� ef� :16_,•,-,.--1, ,,,,-,i,-:,•:- „�1 � �� j'' .,, .c y �p � ,, t ,iiis-. 'X t r �, tr +v-fa+„ i 1,11; ag+ - y 4 , .1 .i •t 4, aa. - 7nr,�.Ci t { c , 1 4'`'j” U,r i t 4 r�'E h .. 5 » 3 _ �'M1 1 rs71\L • ���� r� �s� ,,'.4 i i i`i'n,4'4�h'l� -.1!)=k,,,, %t" _✓. .tu+�- S+w ,,,� 1 y. 4..tU- ,�q U'C d va ak RYA 3 .... -»c ,( ' ¢�: r, "i a 1. .�, '?, \c"v,. f 3X' V.,,z`"s IS a R r:_A -ch..=,k5 13';',17` s y at'A r S, s y 4�11! ,, t: i f . , „,..,/,/,,,... , , ; .t....t ',-Q '1'... .1; J1,\t _ ', `,,1• .....,',4'.- 1,,N ,,,,.,..y, f�, v'-';v%3 -,71-V1,-,14,pri`'r. .r• to �, x: .�' - r 1.• 1,-„44:,',.. { `, Y 4.. �•Z'tiati>9S4t.fP.,,,9- jot,, ^{`5 _7a. Y a, ,, '.,,....,;,,,,„,4-',,.-3:,... '` 4�_ fX . P .,, a # i },^iR> lfe,,.?',.'„-Ti°`i , 1, {, tt }rM ,yi f •w.}v: c _ ,1 ' i�9�, 6 1'.�{ - 4.'1,a:."-4',.,..,31131 !illi --. b,r-i, f ,„``v r'. a. ><, -t�. r r r� '�-, t1,i f. _t,, li t '1•,441,1. , L �. .t.4 .a. --%,s t l- t y 11 d m--; r^4,-*+ =:7, iF t t 1 'jam ' lr, a sa Y• i.1 >aaea re e�'.K.,.,y, 4w -sRz r A w' q r� c; gS)Lt s r �>5a•&u - a 7 s� r'.K'' �"t� t-,,44:,,i,4-4,-011z1 (` x� a s �.. a a 72,',, ,,_',V(4,,,,_?.,-71..7-141,k'r� "afm,""�`"� �'',�a,�xb. .yr• -:�S .s r� 1 l,��� �`re r..ix t;: ! •y 'it +.w* 3,,6 7s :!l , f izn, V1.,'' 1:40''',.144- ,4';': �' ��,.sn '7 4,4` { A.Z'^1`a y d Fi 1�' } t<.s � Sass r4,4,..):";', �AE+ [M4!�` �t'`y • :4� 11:4,24, ''44',.0 ,"�' a�dS S� i e t at YN �-�../�3� i i• yrets i.nr 4.7447'r. $E , H `S 1 4. 1X 5w, �rff A`.' Wr ",&_ �- . 4'.44, �, + 'vt,r,y,,-,, t r:+ .-:x! $ �`+fie a�r-11„'-+t�i 3 i. -�3L'"'"3, IA Y lif`” S't' !.e w 's+a"" ` :'.: •,11...4' .'-',t,,,,..;/,.4..“,:e.-,,,,,.v " b,"t•3:ski ' ,,q, ,av "i, �4 -4�vr� '"'S' +•�"u%r�- Y',,, t ,,,,,:,•,... .„.4"--1-'t:' ? s" � `�^�a `�� 4 ,e } '••'7�'1�. �,2� g.P:,a ...Lti" fC�4`'e,� �c,,. 4{tt }� v .- y�'� 17.t��d. 5 .�yt' t r 1' k-r> `., 'ar ' ''lt ),:e;;...1 , ;i or: ,,4;4, tM17 1 i' ,, 4'. - � >"'�t�� ,C'i , s: }vr ! .- ��V }� r .r ��`� �xx�.x € 't'C -t 3+<, «¢•}i .�y'� YR�*�r Y��y�`• �; �I ti" 1, ,, i, o,;L ,fit• .f4,. a t': ,„i 1 ' y)3 K;e a� #y,, •+r i ,l ;r` •,tf. k e.1. -- + 9 t t tl f '," az s ,,: 7-,S,s tt n, ,, F ��,; + e r ' °' ,, i,e rix} T t„' +a ;r?t, �, '1'-'",-...`,.. 4':-?”' v .x-, x c p jtr .1•i I\ h-�. �a1: 1 r �S ri � 'SXs b ''''s!'# n t, s `{ 11 it1 54 d.,.•-. r». t { r.--„ r k '4,,31 at ''«sL -4 tsi 4. , r ` '�r.:�°4s"1y`4 /13 rr�}, ! �}+ j{ � L- -n- ="r,"' yat '''� i� ' -rt•tt t II � { i,''''‘ s 'l a .,..-.'ii._,,,' ,a. ; , a'4 v' k 7;.sv,, }+,aft 3 ri I .T+, ., A 'T y!`*; 94�, ' ]. 4 LW' -' 3 S ��ls T•.� 4:. � • + i r y. .a* W t ' r ''pu'' �iN-.. T',t '$y•�tc�'t .�fi' t F,�V " .";' i , Y exA v,� t,- ¢"" `�- „,. 3 �'!t8'�.T • �. � � � tai.. � arm�'� tohan,•.. 'La» �,-',,nw it? a•� �, i r s�• J';. M1'. ;, .S y.,t If , P t Xpry' R .-,, •-„q q 1 ,, "}i. u� - ��'r "Y M �r . ��� :��p s � i' 3 � .� ta�41������li{tP���i_.P a �r . „..1,44,,,,,,,,134:1141:',,,--, _+ ,,,o,„2,..,,, , y' 1,..„ h ,�_ .,.- 1i ?,..,3� t ,''RP`ra�f” ,, .,`f.? it'k ,wd4 f+ r1'r, ,v. °°'. taY"x �.\\, 'ill I l a.y,., fk t.._o_, �C o n . .. , a ` °�: i" .,� w . .r„,,-"t :.,-,,Ay 4a1„ a ...4-, . ,,.o r,_i,1 a+t s' a,i q �'iYF,�4a •� a� 5 a y, '-1-,s-k - -4".a ` , Ifs r .n 4.%,3' .1,€.si-nirp, . ,s ,-f\i1fi '' 4r- _ "'t' �y- $,:..,,,,lii �``. ' y�a�Yy «.;y t�',:^,-k - . 'f r _� . . y :,, ,yp}� . r t S e • ri „,..15 --74.,� r ..r. 1 J� * , , Sf`,,PIS py ..4/.sv.,, $"rty. ••i 4 i `,'. 4 ISN �td" y `t` fE. ♦',.•i t , }ttt A i :040.,, .t•t i , ;' r .-'41„4:. kq�:,�.�1"i'1G 4 - 1 S 1 � `11., ..KKK(• 't', r.a'al.` _,„ 1 Z � '' a r >. �, 6�.p +1 ` °j t P t t P P '' % ( ¢' , 7•. r •W cr z•`.a YyL,G a ti' `g '4),,„ -f••: * t,'� { t` 1v tt , 401 - t a: t77k_.. .:,_,, •v' `}f Lt -,f¢ '. r"r. ^>::'.,. ak.�3'` \6c ,K •kJ-v`u' t y� ,.:,•i ,. r,r,e' Fie"`' n". 1} r x ; . ,, Yf. P ,.. ..z�Sa. i r :,,1-.. f .--41;`,,'-- g'd ••:,C,„„.41-t.';;;,e'r. l ,- _,(u`' y 1N: ' ..f 'thy ,a?, ,• 1 (F ,,,_,.€� ,,,.,. �_ _:' y.n-'f#r-2 L , `,;-� ,in,,,103-4 t, 31. sem`'' ;70 �e..:.41 4.' t+' " 'F.' �ff3 Y''I.. J 63 • • Project Location _ Mounds View/Bridges Golf Course Planning Study A Mounds View, Minnesota — — =a-5-= No Scale N PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. PEC Proposal No.80-525 Item No. 10.U. Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 12/13/99 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: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Year 2000 Pay Plan Attached is the proposed Year 2000 Pay Plan based on the discussion of the work session. The plan is based on the comparable worth work done last year with accommodations made for changes in position work descriptions and elimination of positions from the city's work force. I believe the plan adequately addresses the shifts that should be made for individual positions to bring them better in line with the overall group. The Council may also note that the cumulative amount of changes is slightly less than the total budgeted for the year. As has been the case over the past three years, the changing nature of various work positions, the development of individual skills and the changes in personnel consistently impact the veracity of the overall plan, requiring frequent reassessing and modifying. I suspect this will continue to be the case in the coming year, and will continue to look at a broader market based comparative for future plans. However for this point in time, this plan should be adequate and still meet the state's comparable worth criteria. A Council action of a simple motion to approve is requested. 1 Item No. 10. V. Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 12/13/99 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: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 5407 Requesting Ramsey County Sign Clarification for Highway 10 As discussed at the work session, the Mayor and two staff members met with representatives of the Chamber and business community, and Joe Murphy from County Commissioner's Bennett's office regarding Highway 10 issues. Of particular interest was improving directional signing to Mounds View off of1-35W. Mr. Murphy suggested a City resolution in that regards would be appropriate for the County to respond. Attached is that resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 5407 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING RAMSEY COUNTY INCLUDE IDENTIFYING LANGUAGE ON COUNTY HIGHWAY 10 SIGNS FOR MOUNDS VIEW WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has recently opened the new US Highway 10 around the City of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, the old US Highway 10 through the City of Mounds View will be turned over to Ramsey County and identified as County Highway 10; and WHEREAS, the new signs for County Highway 10 have been positioned on northbound I- 35W; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View business community and the Mounds View City Council have received reports of confusion and lost drivers attempted to find Mounds View but staying on the new US Highway 10 instead of exiting on County Highway 10; The Mounds View Council hereby requests Ramsey County include language identifying Mounds View on the directional signs for County Highway 10 on northbound I-35W, recognizing this will help drivers find the community, maintain their business appointments and clarify between the two similarly identified highways. The Council respectfully submits this request and notes it appreciation to the County and its staff for facilitating this request. Adopted this 13th Day of December, 1999. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Attest: Charles S. Whiting, City Administrator /® (A/ J RESOLUTION NO. 5396 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION REQUIRING CABLE BROADCASTING OF CITY BUSINESS CONDUCTED AT OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View desires its citizens to be fully apprised of all city business conducted on their behalf; and WHEREAS,Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, Subdivision 1, the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, requires that"[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, all meetings, including executive sessions, of. . . the governing body of a . . . statutory or home rule city . . . or other public body, and of any committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a public body must be open to the public;"and WHEREAS,the City Council desires that all meetings of the City subject to the above- referenced Open Meeting Law also be subject to the requirement, in furtherance of keeping the citizens of the City of Mounds View informed, of cable broadcasting when staff members are available; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires that the cable broadcasting requirements for open meetings of the City apply to all entities of the City and that such desire be set forth as a policy of the City. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Mounds View establishes the policy that all meetings of the City or any of its committees, subcommittees,boards, departments, or commissions which are subject to the Open Meeting Law also be subject to the requirement that the meeting be broadcast via cable television,when sufficient staff is available to facilitate the cable broadcasting of the meeting. Adopted this 13th day of December, 1999. Attest: Dan Coughlin, Mayor (SEAL) Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator 411 SJR-172639v2 MU125-11