HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1998/05/11 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY,MAY 11, 1998
7:00 PM
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: McCarty, Stigney, Koopmeiners, Quick, Gunn
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 27, 1998 City Council Meeting Minutes
4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
A. Resolution No. 5235 of Appreciation for Firefighter Eric R. Emerson
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 18 and April 1,
1998
C. Approval of Licenses (staff report attached)
D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., May 26, 1998 for the Public Hearing and
Introduction(First Reading) of Ordinance No. 617, an Ordinance Amending Title
1100, Chapters 1114 and 1115 of the Municipal Zoning Code Relating to
Permitted Uses within the B-3, Business Commercial, and B-4, Regional Business
Zoning Districts.
6. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
A. Citizens: Before speaking must give their full name and address for the minutes.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Second Reading and Consideration of Ordinance No 607, an Ordinance
Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code entitled"Signs and Billboards."
1. Consider Motion Adopting
Roll Call: Quick, Stigney, Koopmeiners, Gunn, McCarty
B. Second Reading and Consideration of Ordinance No 615, an Ordinance
Vacating a Drainage and Utility Easement over and across Parts of Lots 2
and 3, Block 1,North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition.
1. Consider Motion Adopting
Roll Call:, Stigney, Koopmeiners, Gunn, Quick, McCarty
C. Consideration of Resolution No. 5236, a Resolution Approving a Development
Review to allow for the Expansion of the Mermaid Entertainment Center.
D. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Municipal Code Changes Allowing a
Festival in the Park Beer Garden.
1. Consider Motion Adopting
Roll Call: Koopmeiners, Gunn, Quick,, Stigney,McCarty
E. Update on discussing MnDOT concerning access to the proposed Theater Site.
F. Consideration of Resolution No. 5237, Denying a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from Low Density and High Density Residential to Neighborhood
Commercial for Properties Located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood
Road.
G. Consideration of Resolution No. 5238, Denying Ordinance 614, An Ordinance
Approving the Rezoning of Properties Located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-
7761 Eastwood Road from R-3, Medium Density Residential, and R-1, Single
Family Residential,to B-2, Limited Business District.
H. Consideration of Community Center HVAC Change Order.
I. CLOSED SESSION -to discuss update on Golf Course litigation.
8. REPORTS
9. Next Council Work Session: June 1, 1998 - 6:00 PM
Next Council Meeting: Tuesday,May 26, 1998 - 7:00 PM
Council/Staff Retreat: May 18, 1998 -6:00 PM
10. ADJOURNMENT
3.74
uNAppR ovED
Page 1
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
9 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
10 RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA
11
12 Regular Meeting
13 April27, 1998
14 Mounds View City Hall
15 2401 Hwy. 10,Mounds View,MN 55112
16 **********************************************************************************
17
18 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
19
20 The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m. on April 27, 1998.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL:
23
24 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty,Council members Koopmeiners,
25 Quick and Stigney
26
27 MEMBERS ABSENT: Council member Gunn
28
29 ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting,Clerk Administrator
30 Jim Ericson,Planning Associate
31 Rick Jopke,Community Development Director
32 Carl Schmidt, Assistant to the City Administrator
33 Michael Ulrich,Public Works Director
34 Bruce Kessel,Finance Director,
35 John Hammerschmidt,
36 Bob Long, City Attorney
37
38 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
39
40 A. Regular Meeting of April 13, 1998:
41
42 Council member Koopmeiners noted two corrections. Page 2,line 38 and Page 3,Line 28 should be
43 changed from"Mayor McCarty"to "Acting Mayor Koopmeiners".
44
45 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Koopmeiners to approve the Minutes of the April 13, 1998 City Council
46 Meeting AS AMENDED.
47
UNAPPROVED
Page 2
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
2
3 4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
4
5 None.
6
7 5. CONSENT AGENDA:
8
9 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
10
11 Council member Stigney asked that Item 5(D)be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
12
13 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to amend their previous motion,and to approve Items A,B and
14 C of the Consent Agenda,with Item D being removed for discussion.
15
16 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
17
18 Discussion on Item 5(D):
19
20 Council member Stigney noted that Item D will change salary ranges and benefit status for golf course
21 personnel. He noted that the Council recently signed a contract with the Golf Course Superintendent to
22 provide incentive pay for personnel for retention purposes,and therefore is surprised to see this item before
23 the Council for approval. He will not support these resolutions.
24
25 MOTION by Stigney to deny approval of Resolutions 5231-5233. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A
26 SECOND.
27
28 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve Resolutions 5231-5233.
29
30 Mayor McCarty noted that these salary changes will not increase the 1998 budget.
31
32 Council member Stigney noted that this will make golf course personnel eligible for benefits and this is
33 why he opposes it.
34
35 VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried
36
37
38 6. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:
39
40 Mayor McCarty explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with concerns on items
41 that are not on the Agenda. There were no questions or comments from the public.
42
43
44 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS:
45
46 A. 7:05 p.m.Public Hearing and Introduction of Ordinance No.607,an Ordinance Amending
47 Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code regarding"Signs and Billboards".
U Vii R
\I 1 LD
Page 3
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m.
2
3 Mr.Jim Ericson,Planning Associate,explained that this Ordinance will amend the sign code so that
4 installation of wall signs,such as those individual tenant signs displayed on the Moundsview Square or
5 Silver View Plaza buildings would require a building permit and be required to pay a building permit fee
6 whereas up to this point they were exempted.
7
8 The impact to the city is somewhat substantial. Over the past five years,it is estimated that an average of
9 15 permits would be before the city for a wall sign. Typically the permit fee for this would be
10 approximately$70.00. Over the course of five years,this would have amounted to approximately$4,500
11 in lost fees. The impact to the tenant is not significant and this permit requirement is typical for most
12 cities.
13
14 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the first reading of Ordinance No.607,an Ordinance
15 Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code pertaining to"Signs and Billboards",and to waive the
16 reading.
17
18 With no input from the public,Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m.
19
20 Mayor McCarty stated he would not be supporting this Ordinance. The charges for putting the signs on the
21 interior walls of the businesses is just one more expense to the businesses and he does not see it as a great
22 help to the city's revenue structure.
23
24 ROLL CALL VOTE:
25
26 Mayor McCarty nay
27 Council member Koopmeiners: aye
28 Council member Stigney aye
29 Council member Quick aye
30
31 Motion Carries-(3 - 1 )
32
33
34 B. Consideration of Resolution No. 5228,a Resolution Approving a Development Review and
35 Wetland Buffer Permit for the Bridges Technology Park Phase II Expansion,8400 Coral Sea Street,
36 Requested by Bridges Leasing Company,LLC.
37
38 Mr.Ericson explained that the first phase of this building currently exists on Coral Sea Street. The
39 proposal before the Council is to expand the development to the North on Lot 2,adding 35,000 square feet
40 for a total build-out of 64,376 square feet. City Code requires that a Development Review be completed.
41 All of the dimensional requirements of this development have been met. The drainage plan has been
42 reviewed by the City Engineer as well as the Rice Creek Watershed District and a watershed district permit
43 has been issued. The existing retention pond just West of the existing building will capture any run-off
44 from the new development and therefore the run-off will not affect the wetland. The only issue that
45 currently does not comply with City Code is the parking. The applicant is proposing to construct 171
46 spaces;the city code requires 200 spaces. The developer has the availability to build 214 spaces,however
UNAPPROVED
Page 4
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 they would fall into environmentally sensitive area. The city has allowed for proof of parking in the past.
2 With adjustments to the parking ratio, 169 spaces would be necessary. They are proposing 171 spaces.
3 One of the stipulations of the variance would be that if the use changes or the need exists,the developer
4 would be required to build those proof of parking spaces.
5
6 Mr.Ericson noted that Item C of the Agenda is an Ordinance which would vacate a portion of a drainage
7 and utility easement over and across Lots 2 and 3 of this development. This is necessary as the proposed
8 building expansion and development will cross over the easements.
9
10 Additionally,because this development is within 100 feet of a wetland, a wetland buffer permit will need
11 to be issued by the city. One was issued for the development to the South three years ago. The
12 impervious surface that would be within the wetland is approximately 75%of the area.
13
14 Resolution No. 5228 will approve the development review and the wetland buffer permit for this
15 development.
16
17 Council member Stigney noted that the proposed setback is 10 feet from the parking area to the wetland
18 and asked what the setback is on the original building. Mr.Ericson noted that it is approximately 18 feet.
19
20 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to Approve Resolution NO. 5228,Approving a Development
21 Review and Wetland Buffer Permit for the Expansion of the Bridges Technology Park, 8400 Coral Sea
22 Street.
23
24 MOTION by Stigney to amend the previous motion and to require an 18 foot setback from the wetland
25 rather than a 10 foot setback as proposed.
26
27 Council member Quick asked if this plan was approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr.
28 Ericson responded in the affirmative.
29
30 MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND.
31
32 VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION:
33
34 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried
35
36 C. 7:10 p.m.Public Hearing and Introduction of Ordinance No.615,an Ordinance Vacating a
37 Portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement over and across Lots 2 and 3,North Star Industrial Park
38 2nd Addition.
39
40 Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m.
41
42 Mr.Ericson noted that the City Attorney has reviewed this and drafted the Ordinance which will
43 accomplish the necessary vacation of the easement.
44
45 With no comments from the public,Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:23 p.m.
46
UNAPPROVED
Page 5
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. 615,an Ordinance
2 Vacating a Portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement over and across Lots 2 and 3,North Star Industrial
3 Park 2nd Addition,and to waive the reading.
4
5 VOTE:
6
7 Council member Stigney aye
8 Council member Koopmeiners aye
9 Council member Quick aye
10 Mayor McCarty aye
11
12 Motion Carries(4-0).
13
14 Mayor McCarty noted that the Second Reading of Ordinance No.615 will be held on May 11, 1998.
15
16 D. 7:20 p.m.Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No.5219,a Resolution Approving a
17 Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Properties Located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761
18 Eastwood Road,Changing the Land Use Designations from Low and High Density Residential to
19 Neighborhood Commercial,Requested by TOLD Development Company.
20 AND
21
22 E. 7:20 p.m. Public Hearing and Introduction of Ordinance No.614 an Ordinance to Re-zone
23 Properties Located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood road from R-3,Medium Density
24 Residential and R-1,Single Family Residential,to B-2,Limited Business Districted,Requested by
25 TOLD Development Company.
26
27 Mr.Ericson asked that Items D and E be considered together as they relate to the same project.
28 He explained that the Planning Commission voted to approve the Resolution to amend the Comprehensive
29 Plan and also to approve the rezoning of the property. The applicant has requested continuance of these
30 items for two weeks until the next regular Council meeting.
31
32 Attorney Long explained that under the State Statutes, approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment
33 requires a 2/3 vote of the council(in this case,four members of the council to approve). Under state
34 statutes regarding zoning amendments,approval requires a 4/5 vote(all four council members present).
35
36 MOTION by Mayor McCarty to deny the request for a continuance. Notices have gone out to the public
37 and many residents have taken the time to come to the council meeting(noting the full council chambers).
38
39 MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
40
41 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to grant the request for a continuance of Items 5(D)and(E).
42
43 Attorney Long noted if the continuance is granted and the Public Hearing is continued,a date must be
44 specified in the motion so that the public is made aware. This will also alleviate the necessity to re-
45 publicize the public hearing notice.
46
UNAPPROVED
Page 6
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to AMEND the previous motion to include a continuation date of
2 May 11, 1998.
3
4 Council member Stigney noted that one of the Council members is absent and he feels this is a pivotal
5 issue. He would like to have all council members available to vote on Items 5(D)and(E).
6
7 Council member Koopmeiners felt it may be wise to continue the public hearing AFTER the
8 Comprehensive Plan update for Mounds View has been adopted.
9
10 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/McCarty to AMEND the previous motion to include an indefinite date
11 subsequent to the completion and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of Mounds
12 View.
13
14 Council member Stigney asked when the Comprehensive Plan Update is expected to be completed.
15 Mayor McCarty noted that it must be completed by December 31, 1998.
16
17 Attorney Long noted that if there is not a date certain,the City will be required to re-notice the Public
18 Hearing.
19
20 Mr.Rick Jopke,Community Development Director,asked about the 60 day approval/denial requirement.
21 Mr.Ericson stated a 60-day extension has already been granted,and May 29, 1998 will be the deadline for
22 a council decision. If the Council does not make a decision by that date,it will automatically be approved.
23 An additional 60 day extension could be granted,but would require the approval of the developer.
24
25 Mayor McCarty noted that even with an additional 60-day extension,the Comprehensive Plan Update may
26 not be completed. He is concerned about maintaining the confidence and trust of the residents. He feels
27 the Council needs to act decisively and take action tonight. He does not see this proposal as the pivotal
28 point in all that the council is attempting to do. He feels the council members and staff need to honor
29 their commitments to a full,complete public involvement in the Comprehensive Planning process.
30 He is appealing to the Council to deny both of the motions and open the Public Hearing to allow residents
31 to give their input.
32
33 VOTE on Amending original motion to approve continuation of Public Hearing after a Comprehensive
34 Plan Update has been approved by the City of Mounds View.
35
36 3 ayes 1 nay(McCarty) Motion Carried
37
38 Council member Koopmeiners stated he misunderstood the motion,and he would like to motion to
39 reconsider the previous vote.
40
41 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/McCarty to reconsider the previous motion.
42
43 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
44
45 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/McCarty to withdraw their original motion to continue the Public
46 Hearing after a Comprehensive Plan Update has been approved by the City of Mounds View.
47
Page 7
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION:
2
3 Quick/Stigney to continue the Public Hearing on May 11, 1998.
4
5 VOTE: 2 ayes 2 nays(Koopmeiners/McCarty) Motion Fails
6
7 Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m.
8
9 Carol Arel,7750 Greenwood Drive,presented a petition containing almost 200 signatures in opposition to
10 the project and to the re-zoning of residential property for commercial use. She noted that there will be
11 many residents affected by the rezoning of the property by an increase in traffic, safety concerns and
12 property value issues. She noted that the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City
13 Council based on what they"think"the new comprehensive plan will include in part. She personally
14 spoke with Dick Thompson at Metropolitan Council and he indicated that the Planning Commission is not
15 allowed to consider in this decision what the new comprehensive plan might be. The amendment request
16 therefore needs to be considered based on the current comprehensive plan. She has read the city's current
17 comprehensive plan and it states that residential development is and will continue to be the primary type of
18 land use development within the community and that low density,single family neighborhoods are to be
19 preserved. She does not feel that a development of this type is a preservation of residential areas. Ms.
20 Arel noted goals contained in the comprehensive plan which she feels are in direct opposition to this type
21 of development. In regard to traffic,the only traffic study that they have seen to date, indicates a 40%
22 increase in traffic daily on Greenwood Drive to over 750 cars. Critical portions of this project have fallen
23 apart and she wonders why it has continued.
24
25 Other concerns expressed by Ms.Arel included the possibility of a 24-hour pharmacy at Wallgreens, the
26 fact that the project size is less than five acres(city code 1120.03)which is in direct violation of code,the
27 proposal does not fit into the current code requirements,and that many residents did not receive copies of
28 the notice of Public Hearing. She also stated a concern about developers trying to pressure residents into
29 supporting the project. She asked that the Council consider what is best for the residents of Mounds
30 View.
31
32 Kathy Piche',2204 Lois Drive,stated that for some residents their dream homes are being changed by this
33 development. She personally will not be directly affected however she has concerns as it very well could
34 be her neighborhood. She asked that the Council consider leaving the residential neighborhoods as they
35 are and to continue to provide the sense of privacy and security that each citizen deserves.
36
37 Janet Wilcox,7815 Eastwood Road,noted that the developer of the townhome project in the area has
38 shown some interest in this particular parcel of land. She is concerned that he may come in with a proposal
39 for the corner if this development is not approved. Residents feel they basically have a choice between a
40 drugstore at the end of the street or more townhomes. She feels this may be why the Council has not heard
41 from very many residents on Eastwood. The proposal does not paint Mounds View as a family-friendly
42 place.
43
44 Jodi Johnson,7870 Greenwood Drive,stated she is appalled at how the council and staff have been
45 working with this development plan. Residents have indicated their opposition since the beginning and
46 she feels proceeding with the project is a blatant disregard for the residents'feelings.
47
Page 8 UNAPPROVED
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road,stated he is concerned about the residents on Greenwood due to the
2 traffic,but he feels residents need to consider the number of businesses that have been lost to other
3 communities. People need to start thinking about the tax base. Where should commercial businesses
4 locate? He feels this area is more appropriate for business than for residential as there are safety concerns
5 with regard to children and Highway 10.
6
7 JoAnn Colleen,2617 County Road I,stated her property is immediately East of the proposed Wallgreens
8 site. Highway 10 has been designated as the main corridor where businesses and development need to
9 locate. At some point,residences will be affected by development on Highway 10. Wallgreens will be
10 paying a considerable amount more in taxes than what the was being paid by the four residences on that
11 site. Ms.Colleen stated she is in support of the proposed development. She noted,however that there are
12 different options for routing traffic and it is important for the City to look at those options if the
13 development is to proceed.
14
15 Lance King,7751 Greenwood Drive,stated he was out of town and therefore did not have the opportunity
16 to sign the petition in opposition to the development. He noted that he did not receive a notice of the
17 Public Hearing. To the public,it appears that the Council has already made a decision on this issue. He
18 stated he fmds it difficult to believe that Wallgreens would choose to locate in an area where fast food
19 restaurants are struggling,where there are a number of vacant lease spaces available and where a
20 Wallgreens is located within less than 3 miles.
21
22 Jim Schmidt,5446 Erickson Road, stated he feels there are other,more appropriate areas in the community
23 for a Wallgreens store and is alarmed that the Council would consider removing four residential homes to
24 make way for a commercial development. Without access to Highway 10,traffic will have a substantial
25 impact on the residents in the neighborhood.
26
27 Steve Pansen,7721 Greenwood Drive,stated he is disappointed that this development has moved forward
28 without the public receiving more information. He feels the development will have an impact on the
29 safety of the children in the neighborhood.
30
31 Gayla Keyer,7730 Greenwood Drive,stated she has worked actively on this issue for the past six months.
32 Unfortunately,she did not have much support and she eventually she sold out. She stated she is happy to
33 see the residents back together. She feels,however,that the developer has essentially destroyed the
34 neighborhood.
35
36 Terri Smith,2653 Scottland Court,wondered when her home would be affected. She feels it is unfair that
37 homes are being taken away.
38
39 Bob Glazer,2625 Hillview Road,asked why Mounds View needs this development.
40
41 Gerald Arel,7750 Greenwood Drive,stated he opposes the proposed change to the comprehensive plan
42 and the re-zoning of the property. He stated residents were offered money in exchange for silencing their
43 voices. He stated he is not against Wallgreens,but is against what is being done in regard to amendments
44 to the comprehensive plan.
45
UNAPPROVED
Page 9
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 Crystal Wilson,7764 Greenwood Drive, stated she cannot believe that the community is willing to open
2 another business and jeopardize the Snyders store in the process. She asked that council members
3 consider what this will do to her property.
4
5 With no further comments from the public,Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:29 p.m.
6
7 Mayor McCarty stated he feels the city acted appropriately and done the best job possible in getting the
8 Public Hearing notices out to residents. If residents did not receive a public notice on of the hearing at
9 their home and are in the designated affected area,it is possible that the notice went to the owner of record.
10 If residents have purchased their homes on a Contract for Deed or if there is another owner on the title,it
11 is likely that they received the notice. He noted that staff will continue to try to improve on this in the
12 future by making all mail notices duplicate in the case of a non-resident owner. Notices are published in
13 the local newspapers as well. The city does everything in their power to get information out to the public,
14 including televising of all council meetings. Residents must take responsibility as well to read the notices
15 and keep themselves informed.
16
17 Mayor McCarty noted that the council and staff are bound by state law and the residents'constitutional
18 rights to apply the laws equally and without bias. He provided information in regard to the townhouse
19 project which was recently approved by the council. The developer of that project had indicated his
20 interest in the city's vacant lot on the corner of Eastwood and Highway 10 as well as a long term loan. In
21 the process,and in consideration of the public's opposition,two council members asked if the council could
22 look at another use for the city's property which would presumably work better as a commercial property.
23 At that time,it was decided to allow another use for that property to be pursued. Subsequent to that,the
24 city received a proposal which involved the residential homes. The City Council and Planning
25 Commission have been proceeding in the direction of what they understood that the community wished to
26 see.
27
28 Mr.Bob Cunningham,Vice President of Development for TOLD Development,stated it is obvious that
29 there is a preponderance in the community against this project. They came into the community thinking
30 that they would be adding a retail store at the busiest intersection in Mounds View. They paid the
31 homeowners what they believed to be a fair price for the property and worked out arrangements with
32 adjacent property owners to allow them to litigate for the what they believed to be negative impact to their
33 property. They worked with staff and the Planning Commission to comply with their requests, and he
34 stated it has never been their intention to cause contention in the neighborhood. They are willing to abide
35 by the Council's decision.
36
37 Mayor McCarty explained that the proposal includes a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to
38 change the land use from high and low density residential to neighborhood commercial. Neither the
39 Comprehensive Plan nor the City Code currently provide for a Neighborhood Commercial classification.
40 A drugstore would fall under B-3 classification which is not a neighborhood oriented code classification.
41 He would suggest that the Council consider a substitute resolution of denial rather than the resolution of
42 approval. Copies of the proposed resolution were distributed to the council members and Mayor McCarty
43 took the opportunity to read this resolution.
44
45 MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Koopmeiners to approve Resolution No. 5216,denying the request for a
46 Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Properties Located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood
UNAPPROVED
Page 10
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 Road, and a change in land use designations from high and low density residential to Neighborhood
2 Commercial,Requested by TOLD Development Co.
3
4 Council member Stigney stated feels this proposal is far better than other options for the property. At the
5 time of the townhome proposal,the residents on Eastwood did not want townhomes proposed for the area.
6 He feels is important that the city listen to the residents of Eastwood as well as the residents of Greenwood
7 in determining what goes in on that corner.
8
9 VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Quick) Motion Carried
10
11 MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Koopmeiners to authorize the development of a second resolution denying
12 the zoning change request.
13
14 VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Quick) Motion Carried
15
16
17 F. 7:25 p.m.Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution NO.5222,a Resolution Approving a
18 Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for an Over-sized Accessory Building at 2824 Woodale Drive.
19
20 Mr.Ericson explained that Ronald Overton has applied for a conditional use permit to convert an existing
21 single-car garage to an accessory building,moving it 100 feet back toward the rear of his property and
22 using it as a shed/storage building. In it's place,he is proposing to construct a 2-car garage. The
23 shed/storage building would exceed the city's limits for an accessory building which is 216 square feet
24 when not being used as a garage,and therefore will require a conditional use permit. The requirements of
25 the CUP have been met. He noted that staff has included stipulations in the resolution which he proceeded
26 to go through.
27
28 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/McCarty to Approve Resolution No. 5222,Approving a Conditional
29 Use Permit(CUP for an Over-sized Accessory Building at 2824 Woodale Drive.
30
31 Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m. With no comments from the public,Mayor
32 McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:51 p.m.
33
34 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
35
36 G. 7:30 p.m.Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No.5223,a Resolution Approving an
37 Over-sized Garage at 7858 Long Lake Road,Requested by Thomas Lammi.
38
39 Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 9:00 p.m.
40
41 Mr.Ericson explained that this applicant is proposing to add to his existing garage a 616 square foot garage
42 addition. The addition would attach seamlessly to the rear of the garage and house,tying into the existing
43 roofline,siding and soffits. A Conditional Use Permit is required for any garages exceeding 864 square
44 feet in size. The proposed size of the garage after completion is 1,246 square feet. It was noted that this
45 proposal complies with all CUP requirements.
46
47 With no comments from the public,Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 9:03 p.m.
UNAPPROVED
Page 11
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No. 5223,a Resolution Approving a
2 Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Garage at 7858 Long Lake Road.
3
4 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
5
6 H. 7:35 p.m.Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No.5224,a Resolution Approving a
7 Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for Merryville Farm Market to allow for an Outdoor Sales operation
8 at Mounds View Square.
9
10 Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 9:04 p.m.
11
12 Mr.Ericson explained that this is request is for a CUP for Merryville Farms to allow them to operate an
13 outdoor produce stand in the parking lot of Moundsview Square Shopping Center. This has been operated
14 at this location for the past three years and there have been no problems. The CUP will allow the city to
15 enforce the time,manner and place provisions for the operation of this stand. All requirements for the
16 CUP have been met. Staff is currently looking at the code in terms of possible amendments so that in
17 future years this request would not need to go before council as a CUP.
18
19 With no comments from the public,Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 9:05 p.m.
20
21 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve Resolution No. 5224,Approving a Conditional
22 Use Permit(CUP)for Merryville Farm Market to Allow for an Outdoor Sales Operation at Mounds View
23 Square.
24
25 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
26
27 I. Consideration of Resolution No.5227,a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision of Property
28 Located at 7581 Spring Lake Road,Requested by Charles and Shirley Schultz.
29
30 Mr.Ericson explained that this applicant is requesting approval to split their property located at 7581
31 Spring Lake Road into two lots. One lot would be 85 feet,leaving 80 feet for the existing home. The
32 City Attorney has reviewed the necessary documents and all dimensional requirements have been met.
33 In regard to park dedication fees,the Parks and Recreation Commission has requested the fee be set at
34 $1,032.
35
36 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to Approve Resolution No. 5227,a Resolution Approving a Minor
37 Subdivision Located at 7581 Spring Lake Road,Requested by Charles and Shirley Schultz.
38
39 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
40
41 J. 7:40 p.m.Public Hearing.
42
43 1. Consideration of Resolution No.5226,a Resolution Approving a Development Stage Review
44 Plan for the Anthony Properties Management/O'Neil PUD at 2430 Highway 10.
45
46 2. Consideration of Resolution No.5229,a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit at
47 2430 Highway 10.
uNAppRovED
Page 12
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 3. Consideration of Resolution No.5230,Concerning Access to Anthony Properties
2 Management/O'Neil PUD at 2430 Highway 10.
3
4 Mr.Rick Jopke,Community Development Director,provided a brief re-cap of this development proposal.
5 The applicant,Anthony Properties is proposing to construct a 63,000 square foot, 15 screen 2,188 seat
6 movie theater,three 11,000 square foot one-story office buildings,a 5,000 square foot restaurant and a
7 6,400 square foot retail/restaurant building on the site located at 2430 Highway 10.
8
9 Mr.Jopke noted that there are three steps in the PUD process-a general concept plan,a development stage
10 plan and a final plan. On May 12, 1997 the City Council approved the General Concept Plan for this
11 development. The Development Stage Plan,which is before the Council now is the next step in the
12 process. This includes a more detailed plan of the development. The Planning Commission reviewed the
13 plan and recommended approval of the Development Stage Plans with a number of stipulations. The City
14 Council must conduct a Public Hearing and grant approval,resubmit the plan to the Planning Commission
15 for further consideration or deny approval of the plan. There is a 60 day requirement for Council approval
16 which is due to expire on May 17, 1998,and if the council does not approve the project,they must either
17 deny it or grant a 60-day extension.
18
19 Mr.Jopke explained the review and evaluation criteria for development stage plans and provided a brief
20 summary of staffs fmdings regarding each. Essentially,all criteria has been met,with the exception of
21 the signalized intersection on Highway 10 which has not obtained approval from MnDOT. It was noted
22 that the signalized intersection as proposed with a right-in and right-out is important to the development of
23 the property and working with MnDOT in regard to this issue will be important. Mr.Jopke discussed the
24 changes which have been made since the general concept plan which was approved in 1997.
25
26 The Planning Commission has reviewed the development stage review and is recommending Council
27 approval with stipulations. Mr.Jopke went through the stipulations of the resolutions.
28
29 Mr. Wendell Smith of Anthony Properties provided a brief overview of the history of the project. He
30 provided copies of the plans which were approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council in
31 1997,and discussed how the plans have changed since that time. He noted that the revised plan has better
32 quality than the original plan. He provided renderings of the proposed theater and office buildings. He
33 noted that there are still no access points onto County Road H-2 or Long Lake Road. A diagram was
34 provided depicting the new proposed signalized intersection. He noted that it is very important from a
35 safety and traffic standpoint that this signalized intersection be approved and it was their understanding that
36 MnDOT had approved it. On April 22nd, however,they were notified that MnDOT will not agree to this
37 signalized intersection without access being provided to Long Lake Road or County Road H-2.
38
39 Mr. Smith asked that the Council approve the development plan,the buffer permit and strongly endorse the
40 intersection as shown on the plan and work with MnDOT to obtain permission of the signalized
41 intersection before the commencement of construction.
42
43 Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m.
44
45 Milly Ash,2664 Lake Court Drive, asked for a clarification on the access to the restaurant site from Long
46 Lake Road. Mr. Smith noted that the plan shows a entrance and exit to the restaurant site from Long Lake
47 Road,however MnDOT has indicated that they will not allow for a right-in/right-out to Highway 10 and
UNAPPROVED
Page 13
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 the access as shown is the only one to the restaurant site. Ms.Ash stated her concern that people wanting
2 to avoid delays at the intersection of Long Lake Road and Highway 10 may choose to cut through the
3 restaurant site. Mr. Smith stated this is a possibility,however he does not feel people will find that it saves
4 them any time to use this route.
5
6 Julie Olson,2663 Lake Court Circle,asked if the developer has guaranteed in writing that they will
7 provide a share of the cost for the signalized intersection. Mayor McCarty noted that Resolution 5230
8 will require the developer to partake in the cost($187,500).
9
10 Steve Miller,2614 Clearview,stated in attending earlier meetings in regard to the development,it was his
11 understanding that the developer would assume the cost of any adjustments which needed to be made to get
12 in and out of that property. Why has the city,since that time,agreed to share in that cost?
13
14 Mayor McCarty noted that with the re-alignment of Edgewood Drive,the city will gain approximately an
15 additional 2 acres of developable commercial land which is valued at approximately$250,000 plus any
16 future development tax revenues that are gained. Additionally,it would provide better access to the
17 community center as well as other benefits to the community.
18
19 Mr.Miller asked how long it is anticipated to take to re-coup the$440,000. Mayor McCarty noted that
20 this information will not be known until such time as the land is developed,however history has shown that
21 commercial and industrial tax base has been very kind. Mr. Whiting noted that the$442,500 for the
22 city's portion was a high estimate and may not cost that amount.
23
24 Julie Olson,2663 Lake Court Circle asked if Resolution 5230 could be amended to add that there would be
25 no access to County Road H-2 or Long Lake Road. Mayor McCarty stated he believes this is already in
26 the recommendation from the Planning Commission and Resolution 5230 merely supports the Council's
27 position on the signalized intersection.
28
29 Mr. Jay Anthony of Anthony Properties explained that full access to the development is critical and it is his
30 feeling that they can not proceed with merely a right-in/right-out access to the development. The
31 intersection as proposed will not only benefit the theater,but also the community center and the safety off
32 of residents at the Edgewood/Highway 10 intersection.
33
34 Jerry Linke,2319 Knollwood Drive,stated he is generally in approval of the development but does have
35 concerns. In reference to the comment that city would gain approximately two acres with the realignment
36 of the intersection, he noted that this is already city land(park land)and that with the realignment of the
37 parking lot,the city would actually lose approximately four acres of park land.
38 Mayor McCarty stated this would be assuming that the city would use the land to the West of the realigned
39 Edgewood. Furthermore,the area that Mr.Linke refers to as a soccer field is not a regulation soccer field
40 and there are other fields in the community that are not currently being used. Other concerns expressed
41 by Mr.Linke included whether the developer has provided a space for recycling of trash and the necessity
42 of screening the proposed lighting for drivers on Highway 10. He noted that County Road H-2 is a major
43 arterial and that there should be access to it.
44
45 Julie Olson asked if the Council could consider tabling the resolutions until a decision is made in regard to
46 the proposed signalized intersection. She believes that without a curb cut onto Long Lake Road,MnDOT
47 will not approve the signal and therefore the project likely cannot proceed.
UNAPPROVED
Page 14
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 Resident,2698 Lake Court Drive,stated he believes the biggest concern is the access to Long Lake Road
2 or County Road H-2 and that all residents would appreciate an amendment stating that this will not be
3 negotiated as a part of the any deal with MnDOT.
4
5 Bob Holmback,2596 Mounds View Drive,stated he does not even like the curb cut to the restaurant. He
6 stated he feels it is the general consensus of the residents that Long Lake Road should not be cut into.
7
8 Lynn Thomason, 5301 Edgewood Drive,stated she had spoken with Scott Peterson of MnDOT in regard to
9 this issue and she was led to believe that MnDOT will not allow a signal at the intersection. She presented
10 a petition signed by residents to the south and west of the proposed theater project opposing any plan that
11 would allow access to County Road H-2 and Long Lake Road.
12
13 Dana Mandoza,2633 Clearview Avenue,stated concerns as to water run-off and its effect on the wetlands.
14
15 Barb Haake stated this plan was presented to the Rice Creek Watershed District on Wednesday evening and
16 in general it was approved.
17
18 Mr.Brian Mundstock,Sunde Engineering,presented information in regard to storm water management
19 plan for the proposed development site. He noted that the City Engineer and the Engineers for the Rice
20 Creek Watershed District have reviewed the plans.
21
22 Mr. Mandoza asked what assurances the city has that the developer will complete the project as planned
23 and,if not, what can be done to hold him accountable. Attorney Long explained that the developer will
24 execute a Development Agreement with the city that will obligate the developer to perform according to
25 standards set forth. There would be performance bonds in place as well.
26
27 Mr.Mandoza asked if the city could require the developer to complete certain phases of the project before
28 others. He has concerns that the developer may change the plans after experiencing problems in leasing
29 some of the office space.
30
31 Mr.Anthony noted that he has already executed a long term lease on the property and has spent a
32 considerable amount of money on the project to this point. He has invested more than two years in this
33 project and expects that many millions of dollars will be invested prior to its completion.
34
35 Mr.Mandoza stated many people have indicated their opposition to the project and it is frustrating to see
36 that their feelings are not considered by the council on this matter.
37
38 Mayor McCarty noted that those who attend the meetings are usually those in opposition. Rarely do
39 residents come offering support. Furthermore he has a mandate from many of the residents to lower their
40 property taxes and one way of doing that is to enhance the city's commercial and industrial business base.
41
42 Steve Miller,2614 Clearview,asked why a project such as this is even being considered for the area.
43 There is already a theater complex in Coon Rapids and with the congestion problems on Highway 10,he
44 wonders if this is really the best project for the area. He is not opposed to development on that site,but
45 does not feel a theater is needed.
46
UNAPPROVED
Page 15
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 Mr.Whiting stated that he has not been approached by any other developers for the development of that
2 property.
3
4 Mr. Smith indicated that there has been interest in the site by other developers for high density housing and
5 shopping centers,however this did not seem to be a good use for this type of land.
6
7 A discussion followed in regard to the continuation of the Public Hearing to the May 11, 1998 City Council
8 meeting. It was felt that this would allow staff to meet with MnDOT regarding the signalized intersection.
9
10 Ms.Olson wondered if the Council has the authority to alter the plans should MnDOT formally deny a
11 signalized intersection and the developer wish to pursue alternatives. Mayor McCarty stated that this could
12 be done at the Public Hearing.
13
14 David Jahnke complimented the developer on his involvement with the neighborhood during the planning
15 process. He noted that many of the people present at the Public Hearing did not attend informational
16 meetings that were set up between the developer and the residents.
17
18 Barb Haake noted that any changes to the plan would need to be re-visited by the Rice Creek Watershed
19 District.
20
21 Sara Weeks,2653 Scottland Court,noted that a curb cut onto Long Lake Road or County Road H-2 would
22 provide a better flow of traffic.
23
24 With no further comments,Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 11:10 p.m.
25
26 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No. 5226,a Resolution Approving a
27 Development Stage Review Plan for the Anthony Properties Management/O'Neil PUD at 2430 Highway
28 10,Approve Resolution No.5229,A Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit at 2430 Highway 10
29 and to Approve Resolution No. 5230 Concerning Access to Anthony Properties Management/O'Neil PUD
30 at 2430 Highway 10.
31
32 Council member Stigney stated he felt the Council should consider the concerns raised by the residents.
33 Residents have stated their opposition to paying the$442,000 share to realign the road and install a signal.
34 It was his understanding that the developer would solve the traffic problem. He does not feel it is a good
35 project as it is proceeding. The criteria is not met and he will not support spending that kind of money.
36
37 Mayor McCarty noted that the$442,000 is a"worst case scenario"and the Council has not committed to a
38 ring-road.
39
40 VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried
41
42 Mr.Whiting noted that a meeting has been set up with MnDOT for Thursday,April 30th. Results of this
43 meeting will be reported at the Council Work Session scheduled for Monday,May 4, 1998.
44
45 K. Consideration of Entering into a Contract with Coca Cola for the Purchase of Soft Drinks for the
46 City and The Bridges Golf Course.
47
uNAppRovED
Page 16
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to authorize the City to enter into a contract with Coca Cola for
2 the purchase of soft drinks for the city and The Bridges Golf Course.
3
4 Council member Stigney asked what the difference would be if the city owned their own vending machines
5 versus stocking machines owned by others.
6
7 Mr.Kessel stated he did not have this information available,however if the city stocks the machines the
8 price the city pays for the soft drinks is reduced.
9
10 Council member Stigney stated he could not approve this contract without obtaining additional
11 information.
12
13 VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried
14
15 L. Consideration of Supplemental Services Agreement for Phase II Construction of the Community
16 Center.
17
18 Mr.Ulrich,Public Works Director,explained that Phase Ii construction meetings are taking place at the
19 construction shack for phase II of the community center. It is imperative that the city have the services of
20 the architect and engineers and their consultants who have drawn up the plans in attendance at these
21 meetings. The original contract with WAI Continuum,allows for 12 meetings and this was adequate for
22 Phase I of the project,however Phase II take considerably longer and staff is requesting that an additional
23 25 to 30 meetings be authorized in the Supplemental Services Agreement at a cost of$7,800.00.
24
25 Council member Stigney asked why these costs were not included as part of the original contract.
26
27 Mr.Ulrich noted that the standard contract calls for 12 meetings. This is not adequate for a project which
28 is expected to run 40 weeks.
29
30 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to authorize staff to execute a Supplemental Services
31 Agreement for additional attendance at construction meetings for Phase Ii of the Community Center.
32
33 VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried
34
35 M. Consideration of Community Center Construction Oversight Agreement.
36
37 Mayor McCarty noted that this was an offer received from Mr.Linke for construction oversight services at
38 the Community Center.
39
40 Attorney Long explained that the contract with the Construction Management company includes a 3%fee
41 tied to the$3.5 million project and the council has the authority to increase or decrease the construction
42 costs.
43
44 Mr.Linke explained that any change orders or increases in the construction costs increase the amount that
45 the construction manager receives.
46
47 Mayor McCarty stated the city has a Construction Manager and he is confident with those services.
Page 17 UNAPPROVED
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 N. Consideration of Festival in the Park Beer Garden.
2
3 Ms. Cari Schmidt,Assistant to the City Administrator stated the Mounds View Festival Committee has
4 requested a beer garden as part of the festival. If this is to take place,changes to the Municipal Code will
5 be required. The city has basically two options for consideration: 1) The city could consider allowing 3.2
6 beer in the City Hall Park which would be open to anyone;or 2) the city could limit beer in the City Hall
7 Park to the Festival only. The Parks&Recreation Commission has recommended that alcohol be limited
8 only to the Festival in the Park.
9
10 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to begin the process to amend the ordinance in accordance with
11 Draft Option#2.
12
13 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
14
15 O. Consideration of Consulting Services with WOLD Architects and Engineers for City Hall HVAC
16 and Related Building Renovations Project.
17
18 MOTION by Stigney to table this item. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
19
20 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to approve the Contract for Consulting Services with WOLD
21 Architects and Engineers for City Hall HVAC and Related Building Renovations Project.
22
23 Council member Stigney noted that the total project cost is now estimated at$315,000. He feels the city
24 should look at other options.
25
26 Mr.Ulrich noted that this will go through a competitive bidding process.
27
28 VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried
29
30 P. Extension of Cable TV Franchise Agreement Ordinance.
31
32 Mr.Whiting explained that the current extension of the cable television franchise ordinance is due to expire
33 on April 20, 1998. At the May 4th Work Session,he has requested Coralie Wilson and Thomas Creighton
34 to be present to explain the finalities of the negotiated agreement for a new franchise. In the meantime,the
35 existing agreement needs to be amended. Ordinance 616 will amend Ordinance No. 611 and extend the
36 franchise term to July 20, 1998.
37
38 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. 616,to waive the
39 reading and to set a Public Hearing and Second Reading of this Ordinance for Monday,May 11, 1998.
40
41 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
42
43 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to reconsider the Introduction of Ordinance No. 616(no Roll
44 Call Vote).
45
46 ROLL CALL VOTE:
47
UNAPPROVED
Page 18
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 Council member Stigney aye
2 Council member Quick aye
3 Council member Koopmeiners aye
4 Mayor McCarty aye
5
6 Motion Carried(4-0)
7
8 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to reconsider Item(N.) Consideration of Festival in the Park
9 Beer Garden:
10
11 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. ,to waive
12 the reading and to set a Public Hearing and the Second Reading on Monday,May 11, 1998.
13
14 ROLL CALL VOTE:
15
16 Council member Quick aye
17 Council member Koopmeiners aye
18 Council member Stigney aye
19 Mayor McCarty aye
20
21 Motion Carried(4-0)
22
23 8. REPORTS:
24
25 Council member Quick: no report.
26
27 Council member Stigney: no report.
28
29 Council member Koopmeiners: no report.
30
31 Mayor McCarty: no report.
32
33 City Administrator: Mr.Whiting suggested that Item 10(A)be considered under Council Business,rather
34 than under the Closed Session.
35
36 City Attorney: No report.
37
38 9. NEXT COUNCIL WORK SESSION: May 4,1998-6:00 p.m.
39 NEXT COUNCIL MEETING: May 11,1998- 7:00 p.m.
40
41 10. A. Consideration of Golf Course Equipment Purchase.
42
43
44 MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Quick to authorize the purchase of an aerator for the Bridges Golf Course
45 in the amount of$32,000.(including shipping).
46
47 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
UNAPPROVED
Page 19
April 27, 1998
Mounds View City Council
1 MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Stigney to delay the Closed Session portion of the City Council meeting
2 until after the EDA Meeting.
3
4 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
5
6 11. ADJOURNMENT:
7
8 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to adjourn the meeting at 11:53 p.m.
9
10 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
11
12 Respectfully submitted,
13 �a
14 L10414, - /i 61ja,/),,
15
16 Tamara D. Saefke
17 Recording Secretary
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
3,4
Page 1 APPROVED
April 13, 1998
Mounds View City Council
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 13, 1998
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10,Mounds View,MN 55112
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Koopmeiners at 7:00 p.m.on April
13, 1998.
2. ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Council members Koopmeiners,
Gunn,Quick and Stigney
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor McCarty
ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting,Clerk Administrator
Jim Ericson,Planning Associate
Rick Jopke,Community Development Director
Tim Ramacher,Police Chief
Bob Long, City Attorney
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. Regular Meeting of March 23, 1998:
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners noted that the last name of the Entertainment Chairman for the Mounds View
Festival,Inc. is Hall.(Page 8,Line 11)
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney to approve the Minutes of the March 23, 1998 City Council Meeting
as presented.
VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Page 2 APPROVED
April 13, 1998
Mounds View City Council
4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Mr.Whiting introduced to the Council Ms. Cari Schmidt,Assistant to the City Administrator. Ms. Schmidt
was previously employed by the City of Golden Valley and the City of St.Louis Park where she served as
an Intern on several issues including Personnel and Storm Water Management. She will being working
particularly in the area of personnel and other assignments as discussed in the past with Council. The
Council extended a warm welcome to her.
A. Resolution No. 5220 of Appreciation for Firefighter Jay K.Bohan.
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners took this opportunity to read the plaque of appreciation. Firefighter Jay Bohan
was not present to receive the award.
B. Resolution No. 5221 of Appreciation for Deputy Chief Firefighter Dean M. Olson.
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners took this opportunity to read the plaque of appreciation. The award was
presented to Deputy Chief Firefighter Dean Olson,and thanked him for his many years of dedicated
service.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
Mr.Whiting noted that three items were added to the Consent Agenda,and that a revised Agenda had been
distributed to the Council. One additional item will need to be added,however. Mr.Jopke,Community
Development Director,explained that the Consent Agenda will also need to include J) Setting a Public
Hearing for 7:40 p.m.on April 27, 1998,to Consider Resolution No. 5226,Approving a Development
Stage II Review Plan and a Wetland Buffer Permit for Anthony Properties Management/Louise O'Neil for
the Theater Project at 2430 Highway 10.
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners read through the Revised Consent Agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Gunn to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
6. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with
concerns on items that are not on the Agenda. There were no questions or comments from the public.
Z COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A. 7:05 p.m.Public Hearing,Ordinance No.612,Relating to Noise Control Regulations and
Amending Title 600,Section 607.07,Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Page 3
April 13, 1998 1/1PPROVED
Mounds View City Council
Tim Ramacher, Police Chief noted that a paragraph has been added to Subdivision 2 of the Ordinance
which reads as follows:
c. Stereos, Radios, Tape Players, Disc Players, Etc.: Operation of a stereo, radio, tape player, disc player
or any such device at any time in a motor vehicle in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of
fifty(50)feet from the vehicle shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this Section.
With no comments from the public on this Ordinance,Acting Mayor Koopmeiners closed the Public
Hearing at 7:19 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn to Approve the Second Reading of Ordinance No.612,Relating to
Noise Control Regulations and Amending Title 600, Section 607.07, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners: aye
Council member Gunn aye
Council member Stigney aye
Council member Quick aye
Motion Carries-(4-0)
B. 7:10 p.m.-Ordinance No. 613,Relating to Animals and Animal Control and Amending Title 700,
Section 701.03,Subdivision 1,Subdivision 7,and including a New Subdivision 16 in the Mounds View
Municipal Code.
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 p.m.
Police Chief Ramacher explained that Ordinance 613 will change the definition of Dogs Running at Large
to read as follows:
a. RUNNING AT LARGE: Any dog which is not either: ( 1) Effectively contained within a fenced area
on private property;or(2) Effectively restrained by chain or leash to private property with the consent of
the property owner;or(3) Effectively restrained by a chain or leash not exceeding six(6)feet in length;or
(4) Effectively under the control of an owner by means of a command or signal and on the owner's
premises.
The ordinance will also change the impound period from three days to five days.
With no public input on Ordinance No. 613,Acting Mayor Koopmeiners closed the Public Hearing at 7:24
p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Gunn to Approve the Second Reading of Ordinance No.613,Relating to
Animals and Animal Control and Amending Title 700, Section 701.03, Subdivision 1,Subdivision 7 and
including a New Subdivision 16 in the Mounds View Municipal Code.
Page 4 APPROVED
April 13, 1998
Mounds View City Council
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners aye
Council member Gunn aye
Council member Stigney aye
Council member Quick aye
Motion Carried(4-0)
C. Open and Continue to Monday,April 27,1998 at 7:20 p.m.Public Hearing for the First Reading
of Ordinance No.614,an Ordinance Approving the Re-zoning of 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761
Eastwood Road to B-2,Limited Business District,for TOLD Development Company.
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to continue the Public Hearing on Monday,April 27, 1998.
VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
D. Open and Continue to Monday,April 27,1998 at 7:20 p.m.Public Hearing for Resolution No.
5219,a Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Changing the Comprehensive
Plan Designation for Properties Located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road from
Low and High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial for TOLD Devilment Company.
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners opened the Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to continue the Public Hearing on Monday,April 27, 1998.
VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
E. Consideration of Resolution No.5218,a Resolution Approving a Development Review for the
Expansion of the Saturn Dealership Located at 2375 Highway 10.
Mr. Jim Ericson,Planning Associate,explained that this is a Development Review for the Saturn
Dealership on Highway 10. They are proposing an expansion of the dealership to the East and take over
the parcel on the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H-2. Their intent is to make the two lots one
contiguous lot. The expansion will provide additional service space,showroom floor space and office
space. The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 535-98 which recommended to the Council
approval of the devilment review for Saturn Dealership. The reason for delay in bringing it before
Council is that the applicant was attempting to get a Rice Creek Watershed District Permit and trying to
fmd a way to handle on-site storm water storage. Since that time,Rice Creek Watershed has approved a
permit.
Mr.Ericson noted that one issue of concern is the Lighting Plan. One area on the site,the lighting as
shown on the photometric analysis exceeds the city's requirements. The applicant,however,has indicated
that they are changing the photometric analysis by removing one of the lights which should reduce the
levels to meet City code. Resolution No. 5218 contains language requiring that the applicant bring
Page 5 APPROVED
April 13, 1998
Mounds View City Council
before the Community Development Department a revised lighting plan showing the photometrics of the
site to indicate that it is in compliance with City Code.
In addition to the stipulation in regard to the lighting,the resolution also contains two additional
stipulations: 1) that they obtain access and grading permits from MnDOT and Ramsey County if required
and provide proof of such permit or permission to the City;and(2) that they enter into a Development
Agreement with the City.
Council member Stigney noted that in the past Saturn Dealership has had more cars on their lot than
allowed. He asked if he can expect,with the additional space,to see them complying with maximum
requirements.
Mr.Jim Price,of Saturn Dealership,responded in the affirmative.
Council member Stigney asked if they intend to follow the landscaping plans in regard to the numbers of
trees/shrubs proposed for the site.
Mr.Price stated this has always been the case in the past.
Council member Quick asked what they intend to do about Storm Water Run-Off.
Mr.Ericson explained that they will use the existing 30 foot setback from Highway 10 that would run the
length from County Road H-2 down to their primary entrance. There is a tiered swale that would detain
the water at a couple different levels and then by the time it reached the entrance,it would divert into the
Highway 10 Right-of-Way. This plan is acceptable to the Rice Creek Watershed District.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Gunn to Approve Resolution No. 5218,Approving a Development Review
for the Expansion of the Saturn Dealership at 2375 Highway 10.
VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
F. Summary of City Administrator Performance Evaluation.
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners noted that the City Administrator Performance Evaluation review conducted
on Monday,April 6, 1998,proved to be very satisfactory by most members. There were a few items that
the Council has asked the City Administrator to work towards. Council member Stigney had requested
that a different review format be considered for future reviews. Overall,it was felt that much was
accomplished at this meeting in regard to the views and outlooks of the City Administrator and the Council
members.
G. Setting of Council Staff Retreat Session-May 18.
Mr.Whiting noted that the Council discussed the date for the Council/Staff Retreat Session and tentatively
agreed on May 18th,beginning at approximately 6:00 p.m. He noted, however that at this time a place has
not been secured. He will keep the Council posted.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Gunn to set the Council Staff Retreat Session for May 18, 1998.
@ r
3 =F F
•
Page 6
April 13, 1998 it
Mounds View City Council
VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
H. Consideration of Resolution No.5525,a Resolution Approving the Northwest Youth and Family
Services Agreement.
Mr.Whiting noted that this item was reviewed at the last Council work session. The agreement does not
change the amount that the city contributes and staff recommends the approval of this Resolution which
authorizes the Mayor and the Clerk Administrator to execute the document. The agreement has been
reviewed the City Attorney.
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Quick to Approve Resolution NO. 5525,A Resolution Approving the
Northwest Youth and Family Services Agreement.
VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
8. REPORTS:
Council member Quick: no report.
Council member Gunn: no report.
Council member Stigney: no report.
Acting Mayor Koopmeiners: Mr.Koopmeiners reported that on April 23, 1998 the City of Mounds
View will be the host of the Ramsey County Emergency Management Disaster Drill. This drill will be
conducted at Silverview Park and will train emergency responders for a major disaster. The drill will
begin at 5:00 p.m.and go until approximately 7:00 p.m. There will be a significant number of emergency
vehicles and equipment in the area.
City Administrator: no report.
City Attorney: Mr.Long noted that the legislature has adjourned. There was some legislation which
did not get enacted in relation to the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council.
He feels that it did get the entire legislature focusing on the Metropolitan Airport Commission's procedures
and how they are dealing with the communities. It may lead to some stronger legislation at the next
session.
9. NEXT COUNCIL WORK SESSION: May 4. 1998-6:00 p.m.
NEXT COUNCIL MEETING: April 27,1998- 7:00 p.m.
• 10. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Gunn to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Respectfully submitted,
4A
RESOLUTION NO. 5235
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR FIREFIGHTER
ERIC R. EMERSON
WHEREAS, Eric Emerson will retire on May 13, as a volunteer firefighter for the Spring Lake
Park/Blaine/Mounds View Fire Department, completing 20 years of service; and
WHEREAS, Eric joined the Fire Department April 1, 1978 and was assigned to Station 1 during his
tenure as a firefighter; and
WHEREAS, Eric has attended many special courses and seminars on various areas of fire fighting
including Fire Motor Operator and pump operator training,public fire education planning,principles of
construction and arson investigation; and
WHEREAS, Eric was certified as Firefighter I(1989), Firefighter II(1990), and Firefighter III
(1992) where he has served until now; and
WHEREAS, Eric has responded to more than 3,600 fire calls and attended over 1000 weekly drills;
and
WHEREAS, Eric received many awards over the years including an Award of Valor for rescuing a
resident at a house fire in 1982, he was presented many Merit Service Awards as Outstanding Service
Firefighter to his fellow fire fighters and community for Coordinator at the 40th Anniversary Celebration,
Chairman of the Wellness program, also, attending the most fire drills and responding to the most fire calls
at Station 1; and
WHEREAS, in addition to firefighting duties, he was always ready to help out at public fire
education events and station tours and willingly served on the fire departments Personnel, Community
Needs, Public Education and Investigation Committees; and
WHEREAS, Eric gave himself unselfishly in many ways and in many areas during his 20 years as a
Firefighter. The City of Mounds View appreciates and commends Eric for his many years of dedicated and
loyal service to the Fire Department and the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Duane McCarty, Mayor for the City of Mounds View, and members of the
Council, employees of the Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View Fire Department and residents of the City
of Mounds View, express their appreciation to Eric Emerson for his devoted service as a Firefighter.
Presented this 11th day of May, 1998.
Duane W. McCarty, Mayor
ATTEST::
SEAL:
Charles S. Whiting, City Administrator
. B
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
March 18, 1998
Mounds View City Hall
2410 Highway 10,Mounds View,MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m.,March 18, 1998.
2. Roll Call
Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle,Miller,Brooks
(departed at 9:00 p.m.), Obert, and Stevenson.
Members absent: Commissioner Johnston (excused)
Also present: Planning Associate Ericson,Housing Inspector Dorgan, Council Liaison
Koopmeiners (arrived 7:45 p.m.), and Recorder Dave Hix.
3. . Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda.
There were no citizen requests and comments.
Index to Minutes Page
Planning Case No. 513-98, 8265 Spring Lake Road, Consideration of Resolution 2
No. 532-98, Approving a Four Foot Variance to the Required 30-foot Front
Yard Setback,Preferred Builders,Inc.
Planning Case No. 507-97, 2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road, 4
Consideration of Resolution No. 536-98 Regarding the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning Request for Walgreen's Development, TOLD Development.
Planning Case No. 515-98, 5394 Edgewood Drive,Discussion Regarding Development 9
for the Mounds View Community Center(formerly Bel-Rae Ballroom),
City of Mounds View.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 2
4. Approval of Minutes
A. February 4, 1998 (Regular)
B. February 18, 1998 (Special)
Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to approve the February 4, 1998 (Regular)and February 18,
1998 (Special)meeting minutes as corrected.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0
5.
Planning Case No.513-98
8265 Spring Lake Road
Applicant: Preferred Builders,Inc.
Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a Four Foot Variance to the Required 30-foot
Front Yard Setback.
The applicant,Preferred Builders, Inc. was present.
Inspector Dorgan reviewed the Planning Commission Memo dated March 18, 1998. At
the March 4, 1998 Planning Commission regular meeting the Commission tabled the first
version of Planning Case 513-98, a variance request to deny a seven-foot variance to the
Required 30-foot front-yard setback. City staff had indicated the need for the additional
time to draft a variance that reflected the builder's compromise to allow for a four-foot
variance to the required 30-foot front yard setback.
Formal action was requested on the variance request so the City would be in compliance
with Minnesota State Statues that specify formal action within a 60-day time period.
Chairperson Peterson turned the floor over to the applicant for his comments.
Darryl Westerlund, representative for Preferred Builders, Inc., introduced the
Commission to Bruce Fulcan, the independent home designer that Preferred Builders uses
to design their house plans. Mr. Westerlund said much time and effort had been expended
trying to come up with a workable house plan or rework the proposed plan for the property
in question. To date, the designer has had no luck in this process.
Mr. Westerlund told the Commission Preferred Builders would be willing to build a
smaller home on the lot, but this would take an amendment to the purchase agreement as it
now is written.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 3
Chair Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments.
Commissioner Miller asked what the encroachment had been of the home that previously
occupied the lot.
Inspector Dorgan told the Commission the previous home had been 19.1 feet from the
property line.
Commissioner Brasaemle thanked Preferred Builders for the time and effort that was put
in to researching, at his request, other home plans for the site.
Commissioner Obert suggested building an oversized two car garage,to comply with the
building foot print requirements, as opposed to an undersized three car garage.
Mr.Westerlund answered by saying an oversized two car garage would be very close in
size to an undersized three car garage.
Commissioner Brasaemle stated a 44'wide house with a two car garage still has a
problem because the house itself has to be 10'from the side property line,the garage only
has to be 5'from the side property line. So the problem is not the garage,the problem is
the width of the house. The house with no garage at all would still require a four foot
variance.
Commissioner Stevenson stated he was inclined to vote in favor of the variance because
the City knew the lot was undersized when they bought it. It was also known that a
variance would be required to make the property workable within the EDA requirement
that a 1900 square foot home be built on the property.
Motion/Second: Peterson/Miller to approve the version of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a
Four Foot Variance to the Required 30-foot Front Yard Setback.
Commission Obert stated his agreement with Commissioners Brasaemle and Stevenson,
except for one point;that point being this particular development does not fall under the
City's Housing Replacement Projects.
Chair Peterson suggested as part of the Whereas statements, on Page 2, language should
be added to the second Whereas that says, "No new corner lots would be platted with this
substandard size." The only situations that would not apply would be already existing
properties that are substandard and the home on the property was going to be totally
replaced.
The Commissioners agreed.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 4
Chair Peterson asked for a vote on the motion on the floor.
Ayes -4 Nays -2 (Brasaemle, Obert)
The motion carried.
Commissioner Brasaemle made his opposition statement as follows: The EDA put the
builder in the unfortunate position of having to do the dirty work of acquiring a
controversial variance on a property that the EDA knew was substandard and that the
builder would have a problem getting the variance granted. The EDA, in effect, forced the
Planning Commission to grant a variance on a project that it would not normally approve.
Commissioner Obert made his opposition statement as follows: The first opportunity the
City had to do something right with the Housing Replacement Program they decided to go
around the rules. Obert said he disagrees with this approach to problem solving.
6.
Planning Case No. 507-97
2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road
Applicant: TOLD Development Company
Consideration of Resolution No. 536-98 Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Rezoning Request for Walgreen's Development.
The applicant, TOLD Development Company, was present.
Associate Ericson reviewed the Planning Commission Memo dated March 18, 1998
which gave background information regarding the March 4, 1998 Planning Commission
meeting where accident data for County Road I between Long Lake Road and Highway 10
was discussed. Also discussed at this meeting was accident data for the intersection of
Highway 10 and County Road I.
Impact to values of adjacent properties was discussed. The American Planning
Association's(APA) research division was contacted and information was requested that
would help shed some light on how the Walgreen's Development would impact the
surrounding neighborhood. The information had not been received at the time of the
March 18, 1998 meeting. As soon as the information becomes available the Commission
and public will be brought up to date on this issue.
TOLD Development is still involved in negotiations with the neighboring property owners
on how best to resolve the water drainage and property devaluation issues.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 5
New information brought to the Commission and public's attention was presented as
follows: Ramsey County will require that the developer improve the intersection of
County Road I and Highway 10 by constructing a right-turn lane on westbound County
Road I onto Highway 10. This construction, it is believed,will prevent stacking of
vehicles beyond the proposed Walgreen's access on County Road I.
MnDOT has stated it will not permit the currently proposed right-in right-out access onto
Highway 10 due to the following:
1. Its close proximity to the intersection of the highway and County Road I.
2. The property has an alternative means of access to the property via County Road I.
Staff has enlisted the advice of Mounds View Public Works Director,Mike Ulrich, to
assess the possibility of adding some type of traffic calming measures to Greenwood Drive.
This step could possibly reduce or slow down traffic passing through the neighborhood.
Associate Ericson told the Commission the City Attorney has advised staff that
Comprehensive Plan amendments require a public hearing to be held not only with the
City Council but also with the Planning Commission. Therefore, no action can be taken
on Resolution 536-98 until after the Public Hearing that is scheduled for April 1, 1998,
7:00 p.m., at the City Hall.
Chair Peterson turned the floor over to TOLD Development for its presentation.
Bob Cunningham, representative for TOLD Development,addressed the Commission as
follows: The right-turn on County Road I,as proposed by MnDOT, is acceptable with the
developer and they will fund this construction.
TOLD is of the opinion that the issue of the right-in right-out access is being passed
around from person to person at MnDOT. At first MnDOT indicated that the right-in
right-out access scenario would be acceptable. At a later date, with a different person from
MnDOT reviewing the plan, it was decided the access scenario would not be acceptable.
Currently the plan is in the hands of Michael Christiansen,who has indicated the City of
Mounds View has the right to grant the development access to Highway 10 over the
objection of MnDOT staff. If the City disregards MnDOT's recommendations, it is up to
MnDOT's staff to object to this decision. This is important for two reasons:
1. Access to the Walgreen store.
2. To keep as much traffic off of County Road I as possible.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 6
TOLD is recommending that funds be set aside in an escrow account to construct the
traffic calming devices. Input from the Greenwood neighborhood residents will be
encouraged.
Associate Ericson requested that the Commission review the ordinance as it was drafted
and review Resolution 536-98. Staff is looking for feedback in regards to needed changes
and also, if it is possible for the Commission to indicate if they are leaning toward
approving or denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Request.
Commissioner Miller suggested several grammatical changes,which Ericson said he
would correct. She also questioned the reference to MnDOT's review of the process. It
was suggested that MnDOT has not given a definitive answer to the intersection
construction that would be part of this project.
Chair Peterson made reference to text that referred to a sidewalk. "The City would
require that a sidewalk would extend to the site from Long Lake Road", he suggested this
section of the Resolution would be the place to amplify Ericson's earlier comments in
regards to where a sidewalk will be built and who is going to cover the cost of the
sidewalk.
Commissioner Stevenson asked if there were plans for a designated crosswalk from the
Walgreen property to Mounds View Square.
Commissioner Brasaemle said he would be very concerned about having a crosswalk
mid-block. He said, "Paint on the street isn't going to cut it", referring to cars that are
currently ignoring pedestrian-safety zones.
Commissioner Stevenson stated that people go around the corner very fast at the
intersection of Highway 10 and County Road I, making a crosswalk located there very
dangerous.
Chair Peterson opened the floor to the public for questions and comments.
Carol Arel, 7750 Greenwood Drive, said she would not send her children down a sidewalk
by themselves on County Road Ito get to a Walgreen's store. She said, "A crosswalk is not
going to make cars stop." Her opinion was stated in favor of having a sidewalk all the way
to Long Lake Road.
Gayla Keyes, 7730 Greenwood Drive, asked if the City had contacted an assessor to have
an official evaluation of the impact that the Walgreen's Development would have on the
adjacent neighborhood.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 7
Associate Ericson told Ms. Keyes the City has contracted with the American Planning
Association who is doing research into what other studies have been done specific to the
issue of how developments can affect the surrounding neighborhoods. The information is
forthcoming.
Ms.Keyes told the Commission she had been in touch with the Attorney General's Office.
They have indicated the City of Mounds View would ultimately be financially responsible
for any negative impact that the development would have on the adjacent neighborhood
property values.
Commissioner Brasaemle told Ms. Keyes that the City Attorney would be the appropriate
person to respond to her statement.
Chair Peterson opened the floor for discussion of the Commission's possible leanings on
the Walgreen's Development.
Commissioner Obert stated the people he has talked to, and feedback he has gotten from
the community forums, indicates the citizens of the community want any commercial
development that takes place within the City to be restricted to the Highway 10 corridor.
Commissioner Brasaemle observed that the Walgreen's Development isn't strictly limited
to Highway 10, and this is the dilemma of this development.
Ms.Arel asked the Commission to what extent the City was going to allow commercial
development to encroach on residentially zoned areas.
Commissioner Brasaemle asked Ms. Arel to keep in mind the fact that commercial
developments are the base for the City's tax revenues. Commercial taxes subsidize the
residential use of City services.
Chair Peterson stated that access to the commercial areas is the one element that will keep
the commercial developments centralized to the Highway 10 corridor and out of the
neighborhood residential areas. It is not convenient to get off of a major road to access
commercial business.
Ms.Keyes made the observation that quite a lot of the commercial development that is
going on in the City is T1F funded. She stated that these TIF funded projects don't add
anything to the immediate tax base.
Commissioner Brasaemle responded by saying the Walgreen Development is not a TIF
assisted project.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 8
Ms.Arel told the Commission that they would be setting a precedent by rezoning the
residential areas to commercial for the Walgreen development.
Commissioner Brasaemle told Ms. Arel that the this Planning Commission was very
sensitive to the issue of rezoning residential property into commercial property. He added
that this Commission is not interested in encouraging a major effort to see a wide swath of
property through Mounds View turned into commercial property. The properties that have
frontage on, and adjacent to Highway 10, are the areas that are being considered for
commercial development.
Commissioner Brasaemle said he is still undecided on the Walgreen's Development issue
and asked the staff to develop resolutions to cover both the approval and denial of the
project.
Commissioner Miller stated she,too, is still undecided about the project.
Commissioner Obert stated he is having trouble making a decision whether to support or
to deny the project. The City does need to take advantage of its commercial development
potential in order to keep the City's services at a reasonable level for the residents of the
City.
Chair Peterson stated commercial properties are worth more than residential properties,
thus producing more tax revenue. Strictly from a financial point of view the Walgreen's
Development is very good for the City of Mounds View. The role of the Planning
Commission is to try and figure out which course is best for the City's businesses and the
City's residents. The two issues have to be balanced against each other. He added, he,too,
is undecided but leaning toward approval of the project.
Ms. Keyes and the Commission had an extensive discussion in regards to how the
Walgreen's Development might effect the adjacent properties'ability to handle water
runoff
Commissioner Stevenson reminded Ms. Keyes that TOLD Development has offered to
grade the development site in an effort to alleviate water problems occuring in the adjacent
properties. This work could be made as a condition of the development agreement.
Associate Ericson informed the Commission that this item would be on the April 1 agenda
at which time Staff would provide a report which addresses these issues.
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 9
7.
Planning Case No. 515-98
5394 Edgewood Drive
Applicant: The City of Mounds View
Discussion Regarding Development Request for the Mounds View Community Center(formerly
Bel-Rae Ballroom)
The applicant, The City of Mounds View, was present.
Associate Ericson told the Commission the staff report for the project is still not ready for
presentation. In light of this development, staff is recommending that Planning Case No.
515-98 be tabled to a future meeting when more information is available.
Issues that will need to be addressed when the case does comes before the Commission
will be :
1. A possible code amendment.
2. Possible rezoning to allow a particular use in the area.
3. Development review.
4. Wetland alteration.
5. A public hearing at the Council level.
Bids have been let for the project, but no approval has been obtained from the appropriate
Commissions and Council.
Commissioner Stevenson recommended pursuing a code amendment route to resolve the
use issue. The rest of the Commissioners agreed saying the property should be left B-3.
Chair Peterson confirmed with Associate Ericson that this item would be on the agenda for
discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting.
8. STAFF REPORTS/INFORMATION ITEMS
A. Recap of March 11. 1998. Community Forum Meeting(second of three forums-
verbal report)
Associate Ericson told the Commission that no summaries had been drafted of the
March 11, 1998, Community Forum Meeting. The Commissioners, in a discussion
Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 10
earlier in the evening's meeting, gave some feedback from the meetings they had
attended.
Commissioner Brasaemle stated the following points of interest from the meetings he had
attended:
1. Commercial development along the Highway 10 corridor, in the Northwest region.
2. Future development of the Anoka County Airport.
3. Transit issues.
4. Trails along Highway 10.
5. The Highway 10 Corridor Design Theme.
Chair Peterson agreed with Brasaemle's observations and added the following:
1. Residential development within the City.
2. Infrastructure development.
3. Developing a downtown feel within the City of Mounds View, meeting local needs
locally.
9. CHAIRPERSON AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORTS
No reports were considered.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Special meeting of the Planning Commission
Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m.
(The Special Meeting adjourned to the Agenda Session).
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Jopke
Community Development Director
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 1, 1998
Mounds View City Hall
2410 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., April 1, 1998.
2. Roll Call
Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle (arrived 7:05 p.m.),
Johnston, Miller, Obert (arrived 7:04), and Stevenson.
Members absent: Commissioner Brooks (excused).
Also present: Community Development Director Jopke, Planning Associate Ericson,
Council Liaison Koopmeiners (arrived 7:30 p.m., departed 9:36 p.m.), and Recorder Dave
Hix.
3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda.
Index to Minutes Page
Planning Case No. 507-97, 2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road, 2
Discussion Regarding Walgreen Development Request, Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and Rezoning, TOLD Development Company.
Planning Case No. 514-98, 8400 Coral Sea Street, Discussion Regarding 10
Development Review for Completion of the 2nd Phase of Bridges
Technology Building Project, Bridges Leasing Company, LLC.
Planning Case No. 517-98, 2430 Highway 10 (O'Neil Property), Discussion 11
Regarding the Development Review Stage of the PUD, Preliminary Plat
and a Wetland Buffer Permit, AP Mounds View Limited Partnership (Anthony Properties).
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 2
4. Approval of Minutes: March 4, 1998 (Regular)
Motion/Second: Stevenson/Peterson to approve the March 4, 1998 regular meeting minutes as
amended.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0
5.
Planning Case No. 507-97
2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road
Applicant: TOLD Development Company
Discussion Regarding Walgreen Development Request, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and
Rezoning.
The applicant, TOLD Development Company, represented by Robert Cunningham, was
present.
Associate Ericson made his presentation as follows:
TOLD Development, on behalf of Walgreens, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and rezoning of residential properties to allow for the construction of a
Walgreen store at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I. The meeting
has been discussed at four previous Planning Commission meetings, public hearings and
community meetings in association with the Comprehensive Plan Update process. The
new information that the City had was made available as follows:
1. American Planning Association (APA) information, which was not attached
because it did not address the issue of how the Walgreen store would affect
adjacent property, property values.
2. Discussion with the City Attorney regarding who is responsible for the decline in
property values, if any, when a commercial development comes into a residential
area.
A. The City Attorney advised: Neither the City nor the developer, in general,
can be held liable for any real or perceived reduction in property value.
There is a certain degree of risk that goes with properties that abut vacant
land, or that is in close proximity to major transportation arteries or major
commercial centers. In the event a mistake or oversight is made during the
project review or construction, according to Minnesota Statutes, a city, its
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 3
staff and paid consultants, in general, cannot be held liable for any
damages.
3. Discussion with the City Engineer.
A. In regards to questions raised about the Walgreen Development effecting
the water table in its immediate area: Rocky Keehn of SEH, the City's
Engineering consultant, has advised the City there would be no impact to
the water table directly attributable to this project. If anything, because of
the impervious surface area proposed, there might be less recharge into the
water table. He has also advised the City that storm water runoff which
might effect the development's adjacent properties would also be decreased
because of the newly regraded parcel.
4. MnDOT meeting concerning right-in right-out access for the project.
A. MnDOT has denied the proposed access due to safety considerations.
B. MnDOT does not own the access rights for this location and as such
cannot prevent the access being granted if the City so desires.
C. MnDOT agreed with TOLD's traffic experts that the addition of a right
turn lane on County Road I and the removal of the Eastwood Road Access
would improve the overall functioning of the intersection.
5. Traffic Calming: Two options were presented with their associated costs, which
were minimal. The City's Engineer and Director of Public Works gave written
opinions that the traffic calming devices presented might be good test cases which,
"if proved successful, could be incorporated into future street reconstructions and
as a tool to reduce speeds on some streets with long, uninterrupted blocks."
The impact that the Walgreen Development would have on the adjacent property owners
has not been resolved. TOLD Development Company has offered to compensate the
adjacent property owners with additional land or by means of a cash settlement.
Staff has recommended approving Planning Commission Resolution 536-98, a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change
the designations of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood
Road to NC, Neighborhood Commercial, to allow for the construction of a Walgreen
Drug Store.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 5328-98, a
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 4
resolution recommending approval of Ordinance No. 614, an ordinance amending the
City's official zoning map by rezoning the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and
7715-7761 Eastwood Road to a B-2, Limited Business District classification.
Bob Cunningham, of TOLD Development Company, made a presentation showing
changes that had been made to the site plan as a result of citizen requests and City request.
Shown was the inclusion of a sidewalk from the Eastwood cul-de-sac into the proposed
Walgreen Development. Also included was a deceleration lane on the property for the
right turn entry off of Highway 10. There was the inclusion of the dedicated right lane
from the primary exit point of the property to the intersection of Highway 10. Finally,
there was the addition of a sidewalk from Greenwood to Highway 10.
Cunningham reviewed the pros and cons of the development as follows:
Pros: 1. 11 percent site coverage
2. substantial amounts of green space and buffering
3. ample landscaping
4. fencing to be part of the buffer package
5. 45-55 jobs to Mounds View's economy
6. property tax revenue
7. street developments paid by the developer
8. sale of the City owned parcel of land
9. park dedication fees
Cons: 1. neighborhood impact
2. access off of Highway 10
The floor was returned to the Commission for questions and comments.
Commissioner Johnston asked the developer if he would be willing to move the
Highway 10 access point closer to the property line.
Mr. Cunningham told the Commissioners the referenced entry point on the site plan was
not accurately depicted. After giving the correct dimensions and layout he stated the entry
would be adequate.
Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing.
William Bakke, 7767 Eastwood Road, asked staff to reread the City Attorney's advisory
on the liability of the City in regards to property devaluation of the properties adjacent to
the Walgreen Development. Staff reread the City Attorney's statement.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 5
Carol Arel, 7750 Greenwood Drive, told the Commission that by rezoning an R-1
property to a commercial use will establish a precedent that the City will regret. She
added that the citizens' concerns about safety issues and property devaluation have not
been satisfactorily addressed.
Warren Johnson, 7710 Greenwood Drive, stated to change the Comprehensive Plan, at
the cost of tax payer's property, is not what he felt should be done. The Comprehensive
Plan was put into affect to protect the citizens and to keep that sort of thing from
happening.
Chairperson Peterson reminded the citizens that the Comprehensive Plan is in the
process of being updated and revised. He encouraged the participation of the entire
community to ensure that their voices are heard as part of the update process.
Milo Pinkerton stated he was in favor of the area staying residential. He added putting
commercial property up against single family homes is poor planning.
Tim Behn, 7715 Eastwood, told Mr. Pinkerton that his neighborhood on Eastwood
Road, is against the town home project that he (Mr. Pinkerton) is currently developing.
John Wiens, 7760 Greenwood Drive, stated the citizens don't have an advocate to
represent them on this project.
Margaret Hilton, 7731 Greenwood Drive, stated the residents on Greenwood Drive were
never informed of any other project that was going in on this particular site. She stated
that some of the residents on Eastwood Drive are racist and that is the motivation for
keeping the subsidized housing out of the area. She added, if the Walgreen Development
is approved she wants to move but feels she won't be able to sell her home because of its
decreased value.
Chairperson Peterson told Ms. Hilton the Planning Commission is charged with the very
difficult responsibility of making balanced decisions for the City and its citizens.
Commissioner Brasaemle, in response to the word "racist", told Ms. Hilton he would be
careful using the word "racist"to describe those opposed to the townhome development.
He was against the town homes because they fronted on Highway 10; not because he was
opposed to affordable housing. He felt the townhome property was more appropriate for
commercial development.
Mr. Pinkerton asked if there are other proposals concerning this property that would
maintain its residential character. Staff told Mr. Pinkerton no other proposals are
currently on the table for the property.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 6
Chairperson Peterson told Mr. Pinkerton that his reference to the property, the busiest
corner in the City, as having residential character, was absurd.
Commissioner Obert asked Mr. Pinkerton if he would live and raise his family fronting a
highway with daily traffic of 40,000 cars.
Mr. Pinkerton told the Commission that there is a developer, if the City would take the
time to solicit that developer, who would be willing to develop this property on a
residential basis.
Ms. Arel expressed her concern that nobody was discussing the effect the development
would have on Greenwood Drive.
Cliff Ash, 2664 Lake Court Drive, expressed his concerns about the traffic that the
theater project and the Walgreen project would create together.
Mr. Johnson suggested that the City listen to MnDOT's advise concerning unsafe traffic
conditions at the subject intersections.
Mr. Cunningham read from a Benshoof and Associates study of the accident history
along Highway 10 from Silver Lake Road south to Long Lake Road: "The review
examined the impact that the existing seven right turn access locations had on accident
history during the period. There are five right turn access points located north-bound on
Highway 10, and two on south bound Highway 10. The accident information was
provided by the City of Mounds View and includes a period of 22 months, from January
1996 through November 1997. During this 22-month period a total of 46 accidents were
recorded on T.H. 10. None of the recorded accidents occurred at the site of existing right
turn accesses along Highway 10 or could be attributed to vehicles using these access
points."
Commissioner Stevenson asked the applicant if they would be willing to consider
restricting the Walgreens onto Highway 10 access to only out-bound right turns, as
suggested by MnDOT.
Mr. Cunningham told the Commission that TOLD is having Benshoof and Associates
discuss the issue in more detail with MNDOT. Based on the outcome of these discussions
all right turn issues should be left open. He was not willing to commit whether Walgreens
would be willing to continue with the project if the right turn off of Highway 10 was not
permitted.
Commissioner Johnston expressed his concerns about the lack of an acceleration lane
from the project.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 7
Ms. Arel stated that the lack of information regarding the right-turn lane issues was proof
that the citizens safety concerns had not been appropriately addressed.
Chairperson Peterson closed the public hearing and returned the floor to the
Commission for questions and comments.
Commissioner Johnston, again, stated his concern for the lack of an acceleration lane
for the project. He said he would have a hard time voting for the project knowing that
MnDOT is not behind the designed access point.
Commissioners Stevenson, Brasaemle, and Obert agreed with Johnston and said they
would not be in favor of going against MnDOT advice.
Commissioner Brasaemle told the Commission that Mounds View is in need of tax-
paying commercial developments. If the City's commercial tax base is not expanded the
residential tax rates will continue to increase.
Mr. Johnson stated the message that was being sent to the City at the Comprehensive
Plan Update community forums was that Highway 10 was the only location that
commercial development is welcome. If a project is being considered along Highway 10,
the R-1 property that abuts the proposed project should be rezoned to R-2 or R-3 to
buffer the R-1 areas from the commercial development.
Commissioner Obert reiterated the City's need for an increase in their commercial tax
base.
Chairperson Peterson stated the Walgreen project was close enough to Highway 10 that
it would not be that far of an incursion into the residential area abutting the proposed
project.
Commissioner Brasaemle agreed with the citizens that the R-1 area needs a bigger buffer
area.
Commissioner Obert stated the City could run the risk of developing the reputation of
being unfriendly to developers by requiring the purchase of buffer property to go along
with a given project.
Chairperson Peterson stated the City needs to develop a "downtown feel." Currently,
most services that the Mounds View citizens require are found outside of the City. He
suggested it is time to bring those services into the immediate area and develop that
"downtown feel."
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 8
He asked his fellow Commissioners to answer the following question: Is the use of
adjacent properties, in regards to the Walgreen project, within the boundaries of what the
Comprehensive Plan should look like in its update?
Motion/Second: Obert/Stevenson to approve Resolution 536-98, a resolution recommending
that the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designations of
the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road to NC, Neighborhood
Commercial, to allow for the construction of a Walgreen Drug Store.
The floor was opened for discussion of the motion.
Commissioner Johnston agreed with Commissioner Stevenson's comment that R-3 zones
are appropriate for the Highway 10 corridor properties.
Commissioner Stevenson reminded the Commission that four of the five subject
properties do not abut Highway 10, and therefore should not be considered for the NC
designation.
Chairperson Peterson stated the properties along Highway 10 within the 100-yard
threshold, whether they front on Highway 10 or not, are part of the Highway 10 corridor
development plan.
A vote was called on the motion on the floor.
Ayes - 2 Nays - 4
The motion failed.
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Peterson to approve resolution 536-98, a Resolution recommending
denial of a Comprehensive Plan amendment from low density and high density residential to
Neighborhood Commercial for properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood
Road; Planning Case No. 507-97.
Associate Ericson suggested adding a Whereas indicating that MnDOT has denied access
or indicated their disapproval of an access at this location.
Amendment to the motion was moved and seconded.
The Commission reviewed alternate Resolution 536-98 and made changes in verbiage and
the use of the stated goals.
Mayor McCarty, who was in attendance, addressed the Commission by stating the
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 9
following:
The defeated motion, denying the resolution of approval, leaves the Commission with a
condition that hasn't changed, the zoning hasn't changed and there is no recommendation
to the City Council for a change. By adopting the additional resolution, the motion
currently on the floor, additional arguments and issues are set up that may create legal
questions that need not be addressed.
The Mayor suggested withdrawing the motion and not acting on it.
Commissioner Brasaemle withdrew the motion and asked if Resolution 538-98 also
needed to be acted on.
Mayor McCarty told the Commission Resolution 538-98 would come before the Council
if the applicant decides to appeal the Planning Commissions decision to deny approval.
Commissioner Obert asked the Mayor if the Comprehensive Plan takes precedent over
the Zoning Plan.
Mayor McCarty told the Commission the courts have decided that the Comprehensive
Plan takes precedence over the Zoning Plan.
Director Jopke read from Chapter 1125 of the Code: "The Planning Commission shall
make a Finding of Fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the title
necessary to carry out the intended purpose of the title. Such recommendation shall be in
writing and accompanied by a report and recommendation of City Staff."
Mr. Cunningham stated he would be willing to put a hold on the process to allow the
Commission to get the appropriate advise it needs from the City Attorney.
Motion/Second: Stevenson/Obert to table action on the application to the Planning Commission
until April 15, 1998.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 1
The motion carried.
Mayor McCarty asked staff where the application process was at in regards to the 120-
day-time limit.
Associate Ericson told the Commission and the Mayor the 120-day-time limit expires
May 29, 1998.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 10
6.
Planning Case 514-98
8400 Coral Sea Street
Applicant: Bridges Leasing Company, LLC
Discussion Regarding Development review for Completion of the 2nd Phase of Bridges
Technology Building Project.
The applicant, Bridges Leasing Company, LLC, was present.
Associate Ericson gave a brief background on the project as follows:
Bridges Technology Park has applied for a development review to add a 35,188 sq. ft.
expansion on their existing building located at 8400 Coral Sea Street. The proposed
addition will match the design and style of the existing building.
The applicant is proposing a drainage system which coordinates with an earlier plan which
was platted as part of the original North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition. Because the
work is being done within 100 feet of the wetland, the applicant will need to have a
wetland buffer permit approved by the City. Rice Creek Watershed district has reviewed
the applicant's drainage plans and has approved them pending payment of a cash surety
and dedication of an easement area over the existing wetlands on site.
Parking for the new site does not meet the City Code. Twenty-seven additional stalls
would need to be added, unless the applicant can show that the existing building is
currently over parked.
The City Attorney is drafting an Ordinance to accomplish the needed easement vacation
and will be presented to the Council when it considers the development review.
Landscaping, public safety, utilities, and easements issues are in accordance with City
requirements.
Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the plans, make any revisions it deems
necessary for the applicant and direct the staff to prepare a resolution recommending
approval of the development review to be acted on at the April 15, 1998 Planning
Commission meeting.
Chairperson Peterson turned the floor over to the applicant for their presentation.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 11
Grady Kinghorn, on behalf of Bridges Leasing Company, LLC, told the commission the
proof of parking issue would not be a problem to conform to. The only issue that he felt
needed to be addressed was the parking lot which is located within five feet of the wetland
setback. As indicated the Rice Creek Watershed has given preliminary approval for the
project.
The floor was returned to the Commission for questions and comments.
Roger Anderson, civil engineer and representative for the applicant, told the Commission
there is a 35-foot distance from the closet parking stall to the wetland. All impervious
surface drains through the NURP pond which has a skimmer installed to contain any oil
that may drain in from the cars parking in the lot.
Commissioner Johnston suggested rounding off of the square corners of the parking lot
that are close to the wetland area.
Commissioner Miller asked the applicant to describe the snow storage accommodations.
The applicant complied.
Commissioner Brasaemle asked the applicant if they could modify the drive lane, while
maintaining all safety issues, in order to increase the amount of space between the parking
area and the wetland. The applicant told the Commission that they would make an effort
to do what Brasaemle had requested.
No action was taken on the plan review. The applicant told the Commission that the
discussed changes would be made ready for consideration at the Planning Commission
meeting scheduled for April 15, 1998.
7.
Planning Case No. 517-98
2430 Highway 10 (O'Neil Property)
Applicant: AP Mounds View Limited Partnership (Anthony Properties)
Discussion Regarding The Development review Stage of the PUD, Preliminary Plat and a
Wetland Buffer Permit.
The applicant, AP Mounds View Limited Partnership (Anthony Properties), represented
by Wendell Smith, was present.
Director Jopke gave a brief background as follows:
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 12
The site in question is located at 2430 Highway 10. Anthony Properties Management is
proposing to develop a 63,000 sq. ft. movie theater complex, three 11,000 sq. ft. one-
story office buildings, a 5000 sq.ft. restaurant, and a 6400 sq. ft. retail building. The
movie theater will house 15 separate screens capable of seating 2,188 people. Of the 34 +
acres of land available on the site, 8.25 acres will be wetland, 16.73 acres will be
developed green space, with the remaining 9.3 acres being dedicated to the actual building
sites. There will be parking for 776 cars.
On May 12, 1997, the City Council approved a resolution which changed the
Comprehensive Plan designation of the O'Neil property from Medium Density Residential
to Mixed Use PUD (Commercial and Residential Use). A resolution approving the
General Concept PUD was also passed that same evening.
A general explanation of the PUD approval process was outlined for the public.
There have been several changes to the originally approved general concept plan. These
changes were listed as follows:
1. Parcel B is designated as a retail site instead of a restaurant site.
2. The movie theater seating has been reduced from 2648 seats to 2188 seats.
The number of screens has been reduced from 16 to 15.
3. The site, less the wetland area, has increased from 23.99 acres to 26.03
acres.
4. Impervious site area has decreased from 36.9 percent of the site area to
35.7 percent. Pervious area has increased from 63.1 percent of the site area
to 64.3 percent.
5. The northernmost and southernmost driveways on Highway 10 remain on
the plan.
6. Sidewalks are shown along Highway 10 and along the northern edge of he
wetland.
7. Trash enclosures are shown for each of the buildings.
8. The two NURP storm water ponds have been replaced with one large
pond. This is due to the fact that City storm water from north and east of
the site will be piped to the new pond to help alleviate existing storm water
problems in the area.
9. Snow storage areas are shown on the plan.
10. No access is shown to Long Lake Road as was encouraged as part of the
general concept plan approval.
11. Deceleration lanes are shown on the plan.
No action was required by the Commission. The evening's meeting was for informational
purposes only.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 13
The floor was returned to the Commission for questions and comments.
Commissioner Johnston asked staff if the MnDOT approval of the associated traffic
signal depends on the realignment of Edgewood Road and if so how close would the
realignment come to City Hall.
Director Jopke told the Commission the realignment of Edgewood Road is part of the
project at this point in time. He gave no specific plan dimensions.
The floor was turned over to the applicant for his presentation.
Wendell Smith showed the Commission an updated artistic rendering of the proposed
facilities. He told the Commission that the contractor for the project has been selected.
The changes that have been made from the original site, and as presented by Director
Jopke, were reviewed. No access on to County Road H2 or Long Lake Road has been
designed into the project. This design element was a direct result of working with the
neighborhood that had made it known from early on in the project that they did not want
the theater to impact the traffic going through their neighborhood.
The Fire Marshal's request to widen the facility entries will be accommodated. These plan
changes will be made available at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Several of the Commissioners expressed their concern that the City has not been given
formal notice from MnDOT that the traffic intersections involved with the project have
been approved for construction. They requested that the applicant furnish an official
notification from MnDOT at the April 15, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.
The current plan shows a sidewalk coming from Long Lake Road to the facility entrance
and also from Long Lake over to Highway 10 that would connect. Staff feels that they
would prefer to eliminate the sidewalk from Long Lake Road to the facility entrance and
have a bituminous path instead. This change will be shown on all future drawings.
A site-drainage overview was given by Brian Mundstock, of SEI, the consulting
engineering company for the project.
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to continue the Planning Commission regular meeting of
April 1, 1998 beyond the 11:00 p.m. cutoff point.
Ayes - 6 Nays - 0
The motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 14
Wendell Smith continued his presentation.
Chairperson Peterson asked staff if they had any outstanding issues that the applicant
would need to address before the April 15, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.
Staff had no outstanding issues for the applicant to address.
Several members of the Planning Commission, again, asked for a written notification
from MnDOT in regards to their acceptance of the facility's southern entrance design.
Mr. Smith asked the Commission to hold a straw pole to give the developer an indication
of the Planning Commission's leaning on the project.
Commissioner Obert indicated his full support for the proposed project.
Commissioner Johnston offered his support. He did express some concern with the
neighborhood committee's request to not have any future curb cuts on Long Lake Road.
Commissioner Miller agreed with Johnston on the curb cut issue. She also told the
applicant she is looking forward to the project's completion.
Chairperson Peterson said he was very enthusiastic about the project. He added it's
good for the City and good for the residents; everybody wins.
Commissioner Stevenson said he was behind the project and asked when the project was
scheduled for completion.
Mr. Wendell said if the City could approve the project by the 17th of April, the theaters
would be open by Christmas.
Director Jopke told the Commission that the parking lot arrangements for City Hall, part
of the realignment of Edgewood Road, would be considered for approval by the City
Council at the same time the theater project is considered for approval.
Commissioner Brasaemle gave the project his full support.
8. Staff Reports/Information Items
The next community forum will be held April 8, 1998, 7:00 p.m., at the Edgewood
cafeteria.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 15
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
There were no Chairperson or Planning Commissioner reports.
10. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission
Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 11:24 p.m.
(The Regular Meeting adjourned to the Agenda Session).
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Jopke
Community Development Director
Item No. 5C
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: 5-11-98
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: Community Development/Administration
Item Title/
Subject: licenses for Approval
LICENSES - EXPIRE 06/30/98
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
J.B. Diggers, Inc. -New
TREE TRIMMING/REMOVAL
Precision Landscape & Tree -New
ASPHALT
Leurer Blacktopping -New
Item No. /A
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: May 11, 1998
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Second Reading and Consideration of Ordinance No. 607, an Ordinance
Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code, Entitled "Signs and
Billboards;" Special Planning Case No. SP-061-98.
Date of Report: May 8, 1998
Introduction:
This ordinance amends Section 1008.02 of the Sign Code so that the installation of exterior wall
signs, such as those individual tenant signs displayed on the facade of the Moundsview Square or
Silver View Plaza buildings, would require a building permit and payment of a fee whereas up to
this point they were exempted.
Analysis:
Requiring a building permit and fee for the installation of an exterior wall sign is typical for most
cities in the metro area. This amendment would not apply to any signage within the interior of a
business, only those signs mounted upon the exterior of a building or its facade. The applicable
fees for such a permit is, according to the 1998 Fee Schedule (page 9), $50 for the first 24 square
feet plus $5 for each additional 25 square feet. Because the maximum size of a wall sign is
restricted to 100 square feet, the maximum fee per wall sign permit would be $65.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council move to adopt Ordinance 607, an ordinance amending
Section 1008.02 of the Sign Code.
CO-ArV4 6R-9Z161(-1
Jim Ericson, Planning Associate
ORDINANCE NO. 607
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1008, SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS,
OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 1008.02,
BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1008 of this Mounds View Municipal Code is amended by amending Section
1008.02,`Building Permit Required; Exceptions",Subdivision 2 to read:
Exceptions: Permits need not be obtained,but the other provisions of this Chapter shall be
observed, for the following types of signs:
a. A sign not exceeding ten(10)square feet in area,pertaining only to the sale,rental or
lease of the premises upon which displayed.
b. A sign on residential property stating only the name of the occupant,which sign shall
not exceed two (2) square feet in area
c. A sign on property on which a public, charitable or religious institution is located,
stating the name and nature of the occupancy and information as to the conditions of
use or occupancy or a sign on which property used by the institution as a bulletin
board,which sign shall not exceed ten(10)square feet in area.
e:d. A campaign sign as provided for in subdivision 1008.08 6-—2) fl).of this Chapter.
(1988 Code §39.03; 1993 Code)
SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 27th day of April, 1998.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 11th day of May, 1998.
Duane McCarty, Mayor
A 1'1'EST:
(SEAL)
Charles S.Whiting, Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert C. Long, City Attorney
Item No. -7f2D
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: May 11, 1998
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Second Reading and Consideration of Ordinance 615, an Ordinance
Vacating a Portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement over and across
Parts of Lots 2 and 3, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, Planning
Case 514-98.
Date of Report: May 8, 1998
Background:
Ordinance 615 vacates the drainage and utility easements on either side of the property line
separating Lots 2 and 3 of the North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition. This vacation is required
to allow for the construction of the Bridges Technology Park Phase II expansion. All vacations
of public land according to Minnesota Statutes requires a public hearing. The easement area will
no longer serve a purpose and therefore should be vacated.
This ordinance was first introduced by the City Council at its last regular meeting on April 27, 1997.
Analysis:
The City Attorney has drafted the ordinance and has ensured that it is in the proper form to
accomplish such a vacation. The City's engineering technician has reviewed the legal descriptions
for the easement areas to be vacated and finds them to be appropriately described.
On April 27, 1998, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5228, a resolution approving the
development review for the expansion of the Bridges Technology Park, which requires that the
vacation be accomplished.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council move to introduce the first reading of Ordinance 615, an
ordinance vacating the legally described easement area as indicated on the attached Ordinance 615.
�G2.�JUllZ-d
James Ericson, Planning Associate
• •
ORDINANCE NO. 615
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT OVER LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, NORTH STAR
INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION.
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby amended to
include reference to the following Special Ordinance No. 615:
Subdivision 1. All of the following described land is subject to an easement ("Drainage
and Utility Easement") for public utility purposes, as show on the plat of NORTH STAR
INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota:
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, NORTH STAR INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND
ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof situated in
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Subd. 2. The fee owner of the land subject to the Drainage and Utility Easement, Bridges
Leasing Company, LLC, has requested the vacation of a portion of the Drainage and Utility
Easement described as follows:
To vacate a perpetual easement for utility and drainage purposes
originally dedicated over that part of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1,
NORTH STAR INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION,according
to the recorded plat thereof situated in Ramsey County, Minnesota
being a 10 foot strip of land lying 5 feet on each side of and
adjacent to the south line of said Lot 2 and lying west of the east
10 feet of said Lots 2 and 3 and lying easterly of the westerly 10
feet of said Lots 2 and 3.
Subd. 3. There are no public utilities or facilities located in the portion of the Drainage
and Utility Easement area to be vacated described in Subd. 2 of this Ordinance. The proposed
vacation of the portion of the Drainage and Utility Easement therefore will not adversely affect
the ability of the City or other utility to maintain, repair, or replace public utilities.
Subd. 4. The Council finds that there is no longer a public need for that portion of the
Drainage and Utility Easement to be vacated, as described in Subd. 2 of this Ordinance.
SJR140661
MU210-5
• •
Subd. 5. The portion of the Drainage and Utility Easement, as described in Subd. 2 of
this Ordinance, is hereby vacated.
SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1998.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of
, 1998.
Duane McCarty, Mayor
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Admin.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert Long, City Attorney
SJR140661
MU210-5
Item No.
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: May 11, 1998
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution No. 5236, a Resolution Approving a
Development Review to allow for the Expansion of the Mermaid
Entertainment Center; Planning Case No. 523-98.
Date of Report: May 8, 1998
Applicable Regulations:
• Development Review: Section 1006.06 requires that all commercial and industrial
development within the City be subject to review by the Planning Commission and
approval by the City Council.
• Setbacks: Section 1104.01 establishes the principal building and parking lot setbacks.
These will be addressed in the analysis section of this report.
• Parking Requirements: Section 1121.13 sets the requirements for parking ratios.
Summary:
The applicant, Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid, is requesting a development review to
allow for the expansion of the existing facility by adding eight additional bowling lanes to the
north side of the building. The addition would consist of 7,226 square feet which would
necessitate the construction of 40 parking spaces. The site is currently zoned B-3, which is not
the appropriate zoning district for a bowling alley. Because of this, Staff has drafted Ordinance
No. 618, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code to allow bowling alleys as a permitted use
within the B-3 zoning district.
Analysis:
Dimensional Requirements:
Required Provided Met?
Building Height: < 45 feet 18 feet Yes
Building Setbacks
• Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 140 feet Yes
• Front (County H): 30 feet 260 feet Yes
• Side (Perkins): 10 feet 60 feet Yes
• Side (Business Park): 10 feet 60 feet Yes
Mermaid Entertainment Center
Planning Case 523-98
May 11, 1998
Page 2
Parking Lot Setbacks
• Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 18 feet No
• Front(County H): 30 feet 75 feet Yes
• Side (Perkins): 10 feet 0 feet No
• Side (Business Park): 10 feet 0 feet No
Drainage:
The impervious surface on this site takes up nearly 100 percent of the area. The proposed
addition adds 7,226 square feet of building area to the site, yet replaces an equal amount of
parking area. The net effect is that no additional run-off is expected as a result of this
development. Even so, the Rice Creek Watershed District will need to review this development
proposal and issue a watershed permit before construction can begin.
Parking:
With the additional eight bowling lanes, the parking ratios and counts as required in the City
Code, Section 1121.13 for bowling alleys and the other on-sites uses would be as follows:
Bowling Alleys: 5 spaces per alley 32 lanes = 160 spaces
Dining and Lounge: 1 space per 40 s.f. 12,228 s.f. = 306 spaces
Kitchen area: 1 space per 80 s.f. 516 s.f. = 7 spaces
Office: 3 spaces plus 1 per 175 s.f. 930 s.f. = 9 spaces
Total required: 482 spaces
Staff counted the stalls present on the site and came up with a total of 515 spaces, 18 of which are
being used temporarily for the outdoor volleyball court. Thus, at present, the site is overparked
according to the Code requirements. With the proposed expansion there would be 505 spaces on
the site, a net reduction of ten spaces. This figure is still more than what would be required with
the eight additional lanes. The plan, however, shows the stalls at 9 foot by 18 foot dimensions,
instead of the Code-required 9 by 20 foot dimension. The shorter, 9 by 18 parking stalls have
been allowed only by the City for perimeter parking where an overhang of the car into greenspace
may occur. The Planning Commission and Staff concurred that the sub-standard stalls (9 by 18
feet) would be acceptable so as to be consistent with those stall preexisting. The other issue with
regard to the parking as shown on the site plan is the reduced setback from the north and west
property lines. The parking areas are shown to be at the property line instead of set back by the
required 10 feet. The existing parking lot setback along the western property line is five feet. If
the parking were to be constructed according to the plans provided, as much as two feet of some
vehicles would be extending into the neighboring property.
Staff would recommend that the site plan be redrawn to (1) show 45 degree angled parking
around the proposed addition which would allow for the continuation of the five-foot parking lot
Mermaid Entertainment Center
Planning Case 523-98
May 11, 1998
Page 3
setback from the property lines and the addition of a five-foot sidewalk around the perimeter of
the building and (2) show concrete curb and gutter along the north parking lot. This can be seen
in Exhibit 1 to Resolution 5236. The applicant is willing to revise the plans to show this
reconfiguration of the parking area, yet was unable to provide Council with a redraft at the time
this report was drafted. The plans will be completed prior to your meeting.
Zoning Code Amendment:
The zoning for this site is B-3, Business Commercial, which does not allow a bowling alley as a
permitted or conditional use. It is not until the B-4, Regional Business district, that bowling alleys
becomes an allowed use. Staff has prepared Ordinance 617 that would amend the zoning code to
allow bowling alleys as a permitted use within the B-3 zoning district, thereby eliminating the
Mermaid's status as a non-conforming use. Staff feels that the B-3 designation would be
appropriate, based upon other allowed uses within this district, such as amusement centers, hotels,
restaurants and bars, and commercial recreation uses, all of which describe (or potentially
describe) the Mermaid facility.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution No. 5236, a resolution approving the development review requested by the
Mermaid Entertainment Center, with stipulations.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution 545-98
4. Ordinance 617
5. Resolution 5236
trgy
- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
• DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112
Part e[sti`" 612-717-4020
612-784-3462 -FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Information
Name of Applicant 116,01/4)1L7:-L L. 1*LL Telephone 7 74:7 3S )
Address lct(p4-LJA-y 1Z) Fax )7,-/ t 1 C'7
Pko 4.14.10$ k LZJ ly ,SS 1 I
Incest in Property(check appropriate box)
Owner of Property 0 Contract for Deed Owner
O Lessee,Operator,Manager 0 Agreement to Purchase
o Other(explain).
Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the
property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The
property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. ', •': ' � -
Property Description/Proposal ._
Address or General Location 'L-)-.00 N1L-a t o /1 x ,04.. caututkl M,11 SSA tZ
Legal Description
Property Identification#(PIN#)
#of Acres
Current Zoning
Type of Application
O Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250
o Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500
0 Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit*
O Minor Subdivision $200
O Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees
O PUD Amendment $350
❑ Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250
O Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250
O Code Appeal $100
c Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750
❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 .
0 Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100
O FIoodplain Permit $200
o Other
*Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review,
research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable
incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded
to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed.
Please complete the reverse side of this application.
City of Mounds View,MN
Development Application Page 2
•
Present Use of Property
❑ UndevelopedNacant 0 'Single Family Dwelling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi-family Dwelling
174, Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment
❑ Other(explain)
Property Classification 0 Abstract ❑
Torrens — - - -
Description of Proposal A-t,% E S Ck�S1 i,,� t3LA�16t
BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
Signature of Applicant
Name of Applicant(typed/printed) pJrh�l( _
=L L V.
Signature of Property Owner
Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) 0010..J
Address of Owner
- L�vc� s?._-._ t3c.�� 55144 k
Phone Number of Owner w )1'it 7556 . 7T) 22) (C
************************************************************************************************
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal -17 -
Date of Acceptance Assigned to:
Planning Case No. Sa �— a�{, 60-day Limit l20-day limit
Fees Paid: • Account# Check# Receipt#
Application: i. 6. 60 n/e 3 g 6A r' S8 Y-Uft-
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
Other:
Total:
•
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\FORMS\DE VAPP.FOR
1/98
29IInrn In M N rn I; n Ia Nn IO rnI&I •0I 5294I 5291 52941 5L9
1 529
I1WUF;5 'cNN NN NN N1140-411-4
NNINNNINiNNINN 'N- 5288 528 5268 528 528
B- Z [ '
E QC? SP HZ
.yDi� M N
r7• 3 N N 5275 5267
Illittth,
NI
`�� 5263
•
itriti
I-
CA PUD 5251 >
d
4411001
o
o
5230
��®®� N
• ' ' N
Mgt 4*.• 260 WOODALE :,:::,i...„.„.•
i J DR
��kt ehgt y N 5200
W! ►!5249 5240IMEI 5��24}�0�II i 6 - }.: 5205 N } N N 5201 •`.'g
Z�� 5230 ESE y` i' Z 0
hli MEM ANEE 12E
wlk 4
o CC�� 5210 r Pii E �0 tQ tih
I 5200 •�'"5200 5209 •• 'Lti 'LI' 5150
.91 a�
oovo •aontoma• If
2:1I N N N N
�q B-3
EDGEWOOD ti�ti,,"
JR. HIGH Ni
SCHOOL N
010
PUDilk. a, 0-'0• :
.i 9 0
111111111111'
rr\\7110\4 „
N�G��P P R�6
130
44411 _ .itilikti4. . . ..
RICE CREEK 3
11)
\
N LJI-
- CO - . . - Rim -__ -3
_
Ir
LJ
I-
z
•
latt
61:1 •
iy,.
il. , - I.,. ..
11
R-5
�,
TOWNS EDGE TERRACE ,-f_ k
MOBILE HOME PARK �:
1 :-..._ utM7 . r_101
0
0
Pp
4825 U 4860 {
Zoning Map Planning Case 523-98
Applicant: The Mermaid X ‘C
Location: 2200 Highway 10
MIft.
„ . .
.. . .
0 i ” I. . ', ' . . ' ' • ' ii L—_
vdAG-14. 1 S Z..4,1
..t.legirg"1113
9
• . t
, ____.......... ?4,2,-- • , •
•.).5 -..r /,./., - . / // /
/ , , //rx: ,
:
21 uab // / ' //,/, • _ 7
• efvi ,,,/,,Pir. .P0;..‘,653-1,.,/t/2fr, .74,74y-i/, ...,,..-/ / rz 2
- 0 ..... ,..
.-.••••••••
4 tfil • . ,,, ,/,/y/. i
- ,,4,• - / 7," /,..:- ____
..' . .
_ .
--
S .' 1 ,
I . 1
.....
\ 1' T:1. •
Extsrital Itvo-Diwel . .
N _ ;4)
1 )1/ isn t-P fIN
' Cr-
, ; . ; ; N •
\ .
• .
. •
. .
,
.:-N - V/ f " -• --'7'.•'-' ---- .
‘•
--- • . _ .. , , . . . ,
. . , .
--------> . '; • ; - ..'; -- . . .
•-
' 11N.' rikr
, I. . ..
I- 1
Adi5W1
11
&lir'
46._um.- ION 11
J7
Jib
U
_ 1 • 001- ZoOrl- r
d 1._
it 1 ) 1 . 6,4.....
.,. E.
/ .
,4° rgi ./ 0,,) \f TC0111
0 iT
, r, -,
[J , APR 1 7 1998 [I
By
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 545-98
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE MERMAID ENTERTAINMENT CENTER,
2200 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 523-98
WHEREAS,the Mermaid has requested City approval to expand its operation at 2200
Highway 10 by adding eight additional bowling lanes; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a
development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development within the City;
and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application,dated 4/17/98
2. Zoning and Location Map
3. Site Plans,date-stamped 4/17/98
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the dimensional
requirements as set forth in Chapter 1104 of the Municipal Code, with revisions to the site plan
dated 4/17/98, can be met.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval to the City Council of a development review for the Mermaid
Entertainment Center, to allow for the addition of eight bowling lanes, subject to the following
stipulations:
1. Prior to City Council approval of this development review, the site plans shall be redrawn
to show (1) concrete curb and gutter on the parking area along the north property
boundary, (2) the inclusion of two van-accessible handicap stalls, (3) a sidewalk along the
western edge of the addition to connect with the existing and proposed sidewalks, and (4)
45 degree angled parking in the area of the expansion, as shown on or similar to Exhibit 1.
If the resulting parking counts fall below 482 spaces, a variance will need to be obtained
from the Planning Commission.
2. Before permits are issued for this expansion, the applicant shall:
a. Obtain a Rice Creek Watershed District permit.
b. Enter into a development agreement with the City.
Planning Commission Resolution 545-98
Mermaid Development Review
May 6, 1998
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 6th day of May, 1998
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
SEAL
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\523-98\545-98PC.RES
Exhibit 1.
Planning Commission Res. No. 545-98
Mermaid Development Review
May 6, 1998
Perkins
7 5' Setback
-7 ) 1
5' Setback \\\k\\\\\\ '- 45°Angled Parking ' \\7\" \ \....j
. [
/1 —
45°Angled Parking '
MI
ro
o. 5
vi z
_ -a Proposed Side
71 7e Expansion Walk
m
c
in
1 i
-0
c j.
c
0
m
l Existing
Building
i
The
Mermaid
Side Walk
la , \
i
l
All 1
+IC
HC
HC
HC
HC
H Side Walk
HCI
ORDINANCE NO. 617
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING, THE B-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS AND
THE B-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AND THE PERMITTED USES
THEREOF,AND AMENDING CHAPTER 1114, SECTION 1114.02 AND CHAPTER
1115, SECTION 1115.02 IN THE MOUNDS VIEW CODE.
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
Section 1. Title 1114.02 of the Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended by inserting the
underlined and italicized language,to read as follows:
1114.02: PERMITTED USES: The following uses are permitted in a B-3
District:
All permitted uses as allowed in a B-2 Limited Business District.
Amusement centers.
Auto accessory stores.
Bowling alleys.
Commercial recreational uses.
Grocery stores, supermarkets.
Motels, motor hotels and hotels; provided,that the lot area contains not less than five
hundred(500) square feet of lot area per unit.
Private clubs or lodges serving food and beverages with use restricted to members and
their guests. adequate dining room,kitchen and bar space must be provided according to
standards imposed upon similar unrestricted customer operations. The serving of
alcoholic beverages to members and their guests shall be allowed; provided,that such
service is in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and Municipal regulations'.
' See Chapters 501, 502, and 503 of this Code; see M.S.A. Chapter 340A.
Offices of such use shall be limited to no more than twenty percent(20%) of the gross
floor area of the building.
Public or semi-public recreational recreational buildings and neighborhood or
commercial centers,public and private educational institutions limited to elementary.
junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels.
temples and synagogues.
Rental stores.
Restaurants, cafes,tea rooms,taverns, on- and off-sale liquor.
Taxi terminals, stands and offices.
SECTION 2. Title 1115.02 of the Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended by deleting
the italicized lined-thru language, to read as follows:
1115.02 PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-4
District:
All permitted uses as allowed in a B-3 District.
Amusement places (such as dance halls or roller rinks).
Enclosed boat and marine sales.
Bowling131,114ing-alkys7
Department and discount stores.
Dry cleaning, including plant accessory heretofore,pressing and repairing.
Electrical appliance stores, including incidental repair and assembly but not fabricating or
manufacturing.
Furniture stores.
Garden supply stores.
Public garage.
Theaters, not of the outdoor drive-in type.
Variety stores, 5 and 10 cent stores and stores of similar nature. (Ord. 452, 2-27-89)
SECTION 3. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View the day of , 1998.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of
, 1998.
Duane McCarty, Mayor
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Admr.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert C. Long, City Attorney
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\ORD617.ORD
RESOLUTION NO. 5236
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE EXPANSION
OF THE MERMAID ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, 2200 HIGHWAY 10;
PLANNING CASE NO. 523-98
WHEREAS, the Mermaid has requested City approval to expand its operation at 2200
Highway 10 by adding eight additional bowling lanes; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a
development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development within the City;
and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application,dated 4/17/98
2. Zoning and Location Map
3. Site Plans,date-stamped 5/11/98
4. Planning Commission Resolution 545-98
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the dimensional requirements as set
forth in Chapter 1104 of the Municipal Code, with revisions to the site plan dated 4/17/98, can be
met; and,
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 545-98
on May 6, 1998, recommending approval to the City Council of this development review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council
approves the development review request for the Mermaid Entertainment Center, to allow for the
addition of eight bowling lanes, subject to the following stipulations:
1. The site plans shall have been redrawn to show(1) concrete curb and gutter on the
parking area along the north property boundary, (2) the inclusion of two van-accessible
handicap stalls, (3) a sidewalk along the western edge of the addition to connect with the
existing and proposed sidewalks, and (4) 45 degree angled parking in the area of the
expansion, as shown on or similar to Exhibit 1 of this resolution. If the resulting parking
count falls below 482 spaces, a variance will need to be obtained from the Planning
Commission.
2. Before permits are issued for this expansion, the applicant shall obtain a Rice Creek
Watershed District permit and shall enter into a development agreement with the City.
Resolution 5236
Mermaid Development Review
May 11, 1998
Page 2
Adopted this 11th day of May, 1998
Duane McCarty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
SEAL
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\523-98\5236CC.RES
Exhibit 1.
Resolution No. 5236
Mermaid Development Review
May 11, 1998
Perkins
1 5' Setback
5' Setback 3 \\. \\ '\ `-" 45 Angled Parking \\ -\\:
1
//` 4— 45°Angled Parking '
MI
rd
a - 5 '
N c Side
c -0 Proposed Walk
a
0 A Expansion
m
1 ' ;
c i \ \
o
Existing
Building
\\
? The
1
1 c1
.Mermai
Side Walk ,
I It
i
1
k
/illi
+1C
NC
1
NC ,
FiC
NC
N Side Walk
NC\
rlD
Item No.
Type of Business: CB
W%•Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council •
From: Carl Schmidt
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Second Reading of Municipal Code Changes
Allowing A Festival in the Park Beer Garden
Date of Report: May 7, 1998
The Festival Committee has expressed interest in including a beer garden as part of the
Festival in the Park Celebration, with the Committee acting as the vendor. Minnesota law is
clear, that cities can now authorize retail, on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to dispense liquor
at off premises community festivals held within the City.1997 Minn.Laws ch. 129 art I, §3. At
the April 27th Council Meeting, the City Council approved the first reading of the second. ,
option that was proposed, to limit the sale of beer to the Festival in the Park only.
The Park and Rec Commission also unanimously agreed that the new ordinance should limit
beer in City Hall Park to the Festival only. The attached Code changes would be necessary to
enable this event to take place. 503.03 Subd 4. would be created to specifically address the
Festival In the Park. For example:
503.03: License Classifications
Subd. 4. Temporary On-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License/ Festival In the Park
Temporary on-sale 3.2% Malt Liquor licenses may be issued to a holder of an on-sale
intoxicating license, 3.2% Malt Liquor license issued under Chapters 502 or 503 of the
Municipal Code, or to a club, charitable organization, non-profit organization for not
more than two consecutive days. Such license will permit the licensee to dispense
3.2% Malt Liquor at the Festival In the Park Community Festival conducted on the
premises located at 2401 Highway 10. The licensee must be engaged to dispense 3.2%
Malt Liquor at the event held by a person or organization permitted to use the
premises, and may dispense 3.2% Malt Liquor only to persons attending the event.
The licensee may not dispense 3.2% Malt Liquor to any person attending or
participating in an amateur athletic event held on the premises. Proof of financial
responsibility will be required in accordance with Code Section 503.07 Subd. 1(c).
This code section would restrict alcohol to the Festival In the Park Only.
The only modification needed in the existing code would be to 909.7 Subd.11., allowing 3.2
beer at the Festival In the Park.
"909.07 General Conduct
Subd. 11. Alcoholic and Intoxicating Beverages:No person may possess, have within
their immediate control, display, consume or use intoxicating liquor or ing-3.2
percent malt liquor in or upon any public park open space, except as permitted by
temporary license pursuant to 503.03 Subd 4 Temporary On-Sale License/Festival In the
Park. This does not include the sale or consumption of alcoholic and intoxicating
beverages at"The Bridges" golf course." •
The one problematic aspect of this change would be that the ordinance would need to be
amended if the name, "Festival in the Park," were to ever change. This code section would
limit the temporary license to a vendor at the "Festival in the Park" only, not to another
community festival with any other name.
In addition to these code changes, the City could require a conditional use permit which could
establish a number of requirements including crowd management, alcohol management, and
enclosure of beer garden. The City may also want to have the Festival Committee sign a
contract with hold harmless and indemnification provisions. . ,
The Festival Committee is currently looking into the costs for liability insurance for the beer
'garden. In addition, the city should obtain a rider for the beer garden through the liability
insurance already in place for the Festival. According to our insurance agency, the cost of this
rider would be approximately $300, which would cover the City to a maximum of$500,000..
Recommended Action: Approve the second reading and move to adopt Municipal Code Section
503.03 Subd. 4, and the changes to Municipal Code Section 909.07 Subd. 11.
DRAFT - OPTION TWO
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 503 ENTITLED "NON-INTOXICATING LIQUOR"
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
Section I: Chapter 503,Nonintoxicating Liquor is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 503 isieNieueR 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR
Chapter 503.01 DEFINITIONS
Subd. 1. BEER or 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR
Chapter 503.03 LICENSE CLASSIFICATIONS:
Subd. 1. On-Sale Licenses
a. On-sale licenses shall be granted only to bona-fide clubs, beer stores,
drugstores, bowling centers, restaurants, and hotels where food is prepared
and served for consumption on the premises. On-sale licenses shall permit
the sale of beer for consumption on the premises only.
b. A holder of an on-sale license to sell nonintoxicating 3.2 percent malt liquor
pursuant Hereto, who is also licensed to sell on-sale wine pursuant to
subdivision 502.03 (3) of this Title and whose gross receipts are at least sixty
percent(60%) attributable to the sale of food, is permitted to sell intoxicating
malt liquor at on-sale without an additional license. (Ord. 6-26-89)
Subd. 2. Off-Sale Licenses. Off-sale licenses shall permit the sale of beer at retail, in
the original package, for consumption off the premises only. (1988 Code
§101.02).
Subd. 3. Temporary Nun-Litocicating 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Special Events License.
A temporary special event 3.2 percent malt liquor license may
be issued for the retail sale of non-intoxicating 3.2 percent malt liquor for
consumption on City owned premises located at 5394 Edgewood Drive,
and 8290 Coral Sea Street and during the time of the special
Event. A special event license may be issued to a club, or charitable, religious,
Or other non-profit organization which has been in existence for at least three
(3)years, or to an organization contributing all of the profits of the sale of
non-intoxicating 3.2 percent malt liquor to a charity, or to any business holding
an on-sale license to sell 3.2 percent malt liquor issued by the
City or by an adjacent City. The license shall specify the date, time and place
and premises of the special event. A special event h JU-uiloAicating 3.2 percent
malt liquor license is not transferable. (Ord. 591, 10-29-96).
Subd. 4. Temporary On-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License/ Festival In the Park
Temporary on-sale 3.2% Malt Liquor licenses may be issued to a holder of an
on-sale intoxicating license, 3.2% Malt Liquor license issued under Chapters
502 or 503 of the Municipal Code, or to a club, charitable organization, non-
profit organization for not more than two consecutive days. Such license will
permit the licensee to dispense 3.2% Malt Liquor at the Festival In the Park
Community Festival conducted on the premises located at 2401 Highway 10.
The licensee must be engaged to dispense 3.2% Malt Liquor at the event held
by a person or organization permitted to use the premises, and may dispense
3.2% Malt Liquor only to persons attending the event. The licensee may not
dispense 3.2% Malt Liquor to any person attending or participating in an
amateur athletic event held on the premises. Proof of financial responsibility
will be required in accordance with Code Section 503.07 Subd. 1(c).
Section II. This ordinance amendment shall take effect on , 1998.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 27th day of April, 1998.
Read and passed by the City of Mounds View this 27th day of April, 1998.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL) City Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
DRAFT - OPTION TWO
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 909 ENTITLED"PARKS AND RECREATION"
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
Section I: 909.07, subd 11. Alcoholic and Intoxicating Beverages, is hereby amended as
follows:
909.07 General Conduct
Subd. Alcoholic and Intoxicating Beverages:No person may possess, have within their
immediate control, display, consume or use intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating3.2 percent malt
liquor in or upon any public park open space, except as permitted by temporary license,pursuant
to 503.03, Subd 4 Temporary On-Sale License I Festival In the Park This does not include the
sale or consumption of alcoholic and intoxicating beverages at"The Bridges"golf course.
Section II: This ordinance amendment shall take effect on
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 27th day of April, 1998.
Read and passed by the City of Mounds View this 27th day of April, 1998.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Item No. 7E
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: May 11, 1998
Type of Business: Council Business
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Update on the Status of Discussions With MnDOT Concerning Access
to the Proposed Theater Project
Date of Report: May 8, 1998
Summary:
At the May 4, 1998 work session staff discussed the status of the discussions with MnDOT
concerning their refusal to approve the proposed signalized intersection for the Anthony
Properties Management O'Neil PUD (Theater project). The Mayor and City Administrator have
subsequently met with Bill Schreiber and Dick Stehr from MnDOT and visited the site itself.
MnDOT staff did not change their position.
On May 8, 1998 city staff and the developer will again be meeting with MnDOT staff to review
alternate access plans to determine what MnDOT would approve. These alternate plans will
include access to County Road H2 and Long Lake Road. The results of this meeting will be
reported to the Council at the Monday May 11th meeting.
Mailed notice of the May 11th meeting has been provided
(.4
Rick Jopke, Community Development Director
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\517-98CC.REP
Item No. 11-1
• Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: May 11, 1998
Type of Business: C.B.
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Community Center HVAC Change Order
Date of Report: May 7, 1998
At the May 4, 1998 Council work session, staff presented a possible change order condition for
the Community Center HVAC system. Staff was instructed to present this as a regular item for
• the next Council meeting. While the currently specified system will provide adequate heating,
cooling and ventilation, there will be some variances in temperature, which could be significant,
especially in the multi-purpose room when it is sectioned off.
Staff has requested that WAI estimate the cost of a possible change order with initial capital
equipment cost verses long term energy savings. A memo from Steve Norberg accompany's this
report. Also attached is a letter from Dean Olsen which summarizes the decisions and steps that
were taken in specifying the current system.
As outlined in the letter to Chuck, an additional $8,000.00 would be required to redesign the
system. Time is critical in this decision. Staff seeks Council direction whether to pursue a change
order to a more enhanced HVAC system for the Community Center.
Staff has not requested that the architect or engineer be present at the Council meeting. If
Council has any questions or requests any additional information prior to the meeting, please call
• me.
1 hael Ulrich, rector of Public Works
May 5, 1998 WA
MY. Chuck Whiting Continuum
City Administrator ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
City of Mounds View PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Mounds View,Minnesota CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
MASTER PLANNING
RE: Mounds View Community Center INTERIOR DESIGN
Bel-Rae Ballroom Renovations
HVAC Concerns
Project #90634,Phase 2
FAX TRANSMITTAL
Dear Chuck:
As a follow-up to the City Council Work Session,May 4, 1998 and the job site meeting of April 28, 1998
with regards to the HVAC system at the proposed Mounds View Community Center,the following should be
noted:
The gas fired rooftop HVAC units are very typical for installations of this type. They provide ducted heat and
cooled air to the areas that they serve.Each unit typically serves a zone within the building.A thermostat
controls each building zone. The overall system is generally efficient and economical.
The original program dated May 6, 1996 and following revisions noted that rooftop units would be provided.
In subsequent meetings with CHS—May 9 1997,Community Education—December 17, 1997,City—July 1,
1997,August 28, 1997 and others,the HVAC systems were discussed along with the design documents.
In the CHS and Community Education areas the exterior rooms would be located on separate zones,with the
interior rooms on separate zones. This setup was discussed and approved. The remaining major areas of the
facility;Multi-Purpose area,Lounge,Teen Center and Gym would each receive its own rooftop HVAC unit.
Each area would be controlled by separate thermostats.Again,this setup was discussed and approved. Some
temperature differential may be created within each zone,depending on each room occupancy and use.
At one point during the Design Development phase,the Community Education area had a boiler system and
variable air boxes indicated. This was removed during the Design Development cost review because the
project was over budget. This was reviewed and approved by Community Education.
At the job site meeting on April 28, 1998,the controls for the systems as indicated were questioned by the
mechanical contractor. This was the result of some concerns expressed about the Phase 1 project.
Additional controls can be added to the systems by installing volume damper boxes and thermostats to
individual rooms with the HVAC zoned areas. This would allow the individual rooms to control the air
volume it receives from the HVAC unit. This would reduce the temperature differential created in the main
zone areas.
The approximate cost for the volume dampers is about$2-3,000. If volume dampers were to be installed in
the CHS Daycare, Community Education,Teen Center and the Multi-Purpose Room, approximately 15-18
units may be required.
381 East Kellogg Blvd.
St.Paul.Minnesota 55101
Fax 612-223-5092
612-227-0644
Wisconsin Office
2125 Altoona Avenue
Eau Claire,Wisconsin 54701
MN and WI 1-800-845-0784
Whiting Letter
Page 2
This cost increase may be offset by cost savings in reducing all the rooftop units to standard units with the
exception of the Multi-Purpose Room with would remain with stainless steel components. This is a Value
Engineering item that is currently being reviewed.
Another option that could be considered at this time would be to upgrade the entire HVAC system. This
would involve adding a hot water boiler and variable air boxes (same as above)with reheat coils to the
current system. This would permit the system to run more efficiently and provide greater control to the areas.
It is estimated that the cost for this system could be approximately$100,000. However,the energy saving
payback could be recovered in a period of 5-10 years.
With this system,the unit heaters located in the vestibules could be replaced with hot water coil heaters,
eliminating the electric heater specified.
If this option is selected, a supplemental service agreement to redesign the systems will need to be issued. The
terms of the agreement will be based on hourly rates not to exceed approximately$8,000.
Dunham and Associates will provide additional information to you on the systems,costs and paybacks.
A decision on this matter needs to be made as soon as possible,since the ductwork is already being installed
and the equipment must be ordered to avoid any delays to the project.
Please note also,Value Engineering on the project to date has saved approximately$90,000,not including
some of the proposals for the mechanical systems.
Should you require any additional information or assistance,please contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
WAI/Continuum
Dean A. Olsen,AIA
cc: Dave Wolterstorff,WAUContinuum
Steve Norberg,Dunham Associates
Tim Dunnwald,Flannery Construction
Mike Ulrich, City of Mounds View
F:190634\CORRESP\WHITING 15
11l:r ttr, ".*: 17 ter, i-N 1)13IH1-H H'_;';1_11:_:1PIE ; Zr'rt=t TO 97P4n54P F'.tt1/til
PROJECT MEMORANDUM
Date: May 7, 1998 DUNHAM
ASSOCIATES
To: Mike Ulrich-City of Mounds View
1
From: Steve Norberg
CC*15UL7uai.
.:Nca.EERi
PROJECT: Mounds View Community Center
Bel-Rae Ballroom Renovations
Comm. No.: 04-97057.02
Re: HVAC Concerns
HVAC AS DESIGNED AND PRESENTLY BID
1. Good economical system.
2. Electrically heated vestibules-cheaper installation costs with higher energy costs.
• Annual operating costs approximately$3,000/year.
• Maintenance-Electric coil maintenance or replacement every 4 to 5 years.
HVAC DESIGN CHANGE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Variable air volume bypass boxes for improved zone control. Costs: $2,000 to$3,000 per added
zone.
2. Hot water boiler, piping,pumps and controls.
• Better zone controls and allows minimal firing of rooftop units during off hours.
• More efficient energy usage.
• Allows for the usage of hot water heat in vestibules-annual operating costs- $400/year.
• Minimal year maintenance- units will last 15 to 20 years.
3. Hot water boiler installation costs approximately$100,000.
4. $2,600 per difference in energy costs per year in vestibule heating only.
SN:mk
\Ut,2ladmwsoocS\PKOJtC7Slo7057.02\ulrieh memosW(
8200 Normandale Blvd.,Suite 500 • Minneapolis,MN 55437-1060 • (612)820-1400 • FAX(612)820-2760
:+ TOTAL PI IGE.01 :+;4
ORDINANCE NO. 618
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 909 ENTITLED"PARKS AND RECREATION"
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
Section I: 909.07, subd 11. Alcoholic and Intoxicating Beverages, is hereby amended as
follows:
909.07 General Conduct
Subd. Alcoholic and Intoxicating Beverages: No person may possess, have within their
immediate control, display, consume or use intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt
liquor in or upon any public park open space, except as permitted by temporary license,pursuant
to 503.03, Subd 4 Temporary On-Sale License/Festival In the Park. This does not include the
sale or consumption of alcoholic and intoxicating beverages at"The Bridges" golf course.
Section II: This ordinance amendment shall take effect on 30 days after publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 27th day of April, 1998.
Read and passed by the City of Mounds View this 27th day of April, 1998.
ATTEST:
Mayor Duane McCarty
City Administrator Charles S. Whiting
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 619
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 503 ENTITLED "NON-INTOXICATING LIQUOR"
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
Section I: Chapter 503,Nonintoxicating Liquor is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 503 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR
Chapter 503.01 DEFINITIONS
Subd. 1. BEER or 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR
Chapter 503.03 LICENSE CLASSIFICATIONS:
Subd. 1. On-Sale Licenses
a. On-sale licenses shall be granted only to bona-fide clubs, beer stores,
drugstores, bowling centers, restaurants, and hotels where food is prepared
and served for consumption on the premises. On-sale licenses shall permit
the sale of beer for consumption on the premises only.
b. A holder of an on-sale license to sell nonintrndcating 3.2 percent malt liquor
pursuant Hereto, who is also licensed to sell on-sale wine pursuant to
subdivision 502.03 (3) of this Title and whose gross receipts are at least sixty
percent(60%) attributable to the sale of food, is permitted to sell intoxicating
malt liquor at on-sale without an additional license. (Ord. 6-26-89)
Subd. 2. Off-Sale Licenses. Off-sale licenses shall permit the sale of beer at retail, in
the original package, for consumption off the premises only. (1988 Code
§101.02).
Subd. 3. Temporary Ton-Intoxicat:,i6 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Special Events License.
A temporary special event 3.2 percent malt liquor license may
be issued for the retail sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor for
consumption on City owned premises located at 5394 Edgewood Drive,
and 8290 Coral Sea Street and during the time of the special
Event. A special event license may be issued to a club, or charitable, religious,
Or other non-profit organization which has been in existence for at least three
(3)years, or to an organization contributing all of the profits of the sale of
non-intoxicating 3.2 percent malt liquor to a charity, or to any business holding
an on-sale license to sell non-intoxicating 3.2 percent malt liquor issued by the
City or by an adjacent City. The license shall specify the date, time and place
and premises of the special event. A special event non-intoxicating-3.2 percent
malt liquor license is not transferable. (Ord. 591, 10-29-96).
Subd. 4. Temporary On-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License/ Festival In the Park
Temporary on-sale 3.2% Malt Liquor licenses may be issued to a holder of an
on-sale intoxicating license, 3.2% Malt Liquor license issued under Chapters
502 or 503 of the Municipal Code, or to a club, charitable organization, non-
profit organization for not more than two consecutive days. Such license will
permit the licensee to dispense 3.2% Malt Liquor at the Festival In the Park
Community Festival conducted on the premises located at 2401 Highway 10.
The licensee must be engaged to dispense 3.2% Malt Liquor at the event held
by a person or organization permitted to use the premises, and may dispense
3.2% Malt Liquor only to persons attending the event. The licensee may not
dispense 3.2% Malt Liquor to any person attending or participating in an
amateur athletic event held on the premises. Proof of financial responsibility
will be required in accordance with Code Section 503.07 Subd. 1(c).
Section II. This ordinance amendment shall take effect on 30 days after publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 27th day of April, 1998.
Read and passed by the City of Mounds View this 27th day of April, 1998.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL) City Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney