HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1997/03/24 Item No.
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: 3/24/97
Type of Business: Special 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: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Proclamation Declaring April 6-12, 1997 as International Building
Safety Week for 1997
Date of Report: March 20, 1997
Summary:
The regulation of building construction is not a recent phenomenon. It can be traced through
recorded history for over 4,000 years. This provides evidence that people have become
increasingly aware of their ability to avoid the catastrophic consequences of building construction
failures. Through adopting building codes, requiring building permits and conducting plan review
and inspection programs, local governments such as Mounds View are working to assure that
building construction is safe and durable. The declaration of April 6-12, 1997 as International
Building Safety Week for 1997 recognizes the important function played by building codes and
building inspection in protecting citizens in our community. A proclamation has been prepared to
0 this effect, for the City Council's adoption.
Brochures from the International Conference of Building Officials are attached which provide
useful information on the benefits of building codes and the building permit process. In Mounds
View, we have experienced an almost continuous increase in the number of permits issued over
the last ten years, since 1986. The number of permits issued in 1986 was 333; the number issued
in 1996 was 529. The bar chart which illustrates this building activity is also attached.
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
N:\DATA\USERSTAMS\SHARE\CITYCOUN\CCRESORDBUILDSAF.CC
i
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING APRIL 6 - 12, 1997 AS •
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING SAFETY WEEK 1997
Whereas, the safety of the buildings we occupy daily is essential to the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of our community and of the world; and
Whereas, among the more significant laws and ordinances adopted by local governments,
for the protection of their citizens, are the standards for the safe construction of buildings in which
people live, work and play; and
Whereas, for construction and building codes to be effective and enforced, u ;c re;a Id,
and cooperation must exist between code officials and the people they serve; and
Whereas, through the efforts of code officials in this community and throne
world, and their cooperative relationship with the construction industry, the administration of
these health an life-safety standards is assured; and
Whereas, local governments as well as organizations as Building Officials and Code
Administrators International, Inc., International Conference of Building Officials, Southern
Building Code Congress Interntaional, Inc., Council of American Building Officials, and the
World Organization of Building Officials are joining to promote the use of building and •
construction codes today, for a lifetime of building safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds
View does hereby proclaim the week of April 6-12, 1997 as
International Building Safety Week
Adopted this 24th day of March, 1997.
Duane McCarty,Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Administrator
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\CITYCOUN\CCRESORD\BUII,DSAF.PRO
•1
• BUILDING PERMITS
1980-1996
600
500
400 -
ill/
300 � -
200
•
•
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 199E
• TOTAL BLDG. PERMITS
Page 1
February 24, 1997
• Mounds View City Council j PpRovED
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
February 24, 1997
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10,Mounds View,MN 55112
**********************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m.on February 24, 1997.
• PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty,Council members Trude,
Quick,Koopmeiners and Stigney
ALSO PRESENT: Bruce Kessel,Finance Director/Acting Clerk Administrator
Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director
Jim Ericson,Planning Associate
Michael Ulrich,Director of Public Works
Bob Long,City Attorney
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
Mr.Kessel noted that a revised Agenda had been distributed to the Council members. One item had been
added to the Consent Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
February 10,1997-City Council Meeting:
MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Trude to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting on February
10, 1997,as presented.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
• ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES:
Page 2
February 24, 1997 APPROVED
Mounds View City Council
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes-November 7.1996 and Cable TV Committee Meeting
Minutes of January 8.1997:
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to accept the Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of
November 7, 1996 and the Cable TV Committee Meeting Minutes of January 8, 1997.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
There was no Special Order of Business.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mr.Kessel read the Consent Agenda as follows:
A. Adopt Resolution No.5089,Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds.
B. Adopt Resolution No.6\5092,Amending Resolution No.5065,Re-scheduling City Council Meetings
Falling on Legal Holidays.
C. LICENSES FOR APPROVAL:
Roofing: Expires June 30. 1997:
Berwald Roofing Co.-New
MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
RESIDENTS REOUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:
Ms.Barbara Haake,3024 County Road I,who is also on the Rice Creek Watershed Board of Directors was
present to provide information about a clean up project and dam construction project at Locke Lake in Fridley.
The project was finally completed on Friday,February 21st. All of the taxpayers in the 30 cities around will
now be responsible to maintain the sediment basin for Fridley which will be a considerable cost. The project
came in lower than anticipated and to date$129,000 remains in project funds. At this time,the Rice Creek
Board is determining what can or will be done with the remaining funds. She provided several options which
she feels should be considered,including 1) returning the funds to the taxpayers;2) reducing next years tax
levy,3) leaving the money in a special fund to be used to maintain the sediment basin,or 4) to debate with the
other cities as to what they would like to do-including the possibility of dividing the funds to be used for their
own Water Management Plan. She asked that the Council consider this and make a recommendation to
Ramsey County and the Rice Creek Watershed Board. She would also recommend that all cities agree to pay
only for the maintenance of the sediment basin as originally agreed upon.
Mayor McCarty thanked Ms.Haake for bringing this matter to the Council's attention. He further
stated he would suggest that Mounds View notify Ramsey County and the Rice Creek Watershed Board •
5, 7, rt P
Page 3 ' y l J s
February 24, 1997 F V L
• Mounds View City Council
of the City Council's displeasure with the overage of the project and ask that next year's levy be reduced by the
$129,000 which he feels would be the most direct way of handling it.
MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Trude to direct staff to prepare appropriate correspondence for forwarding to
the Rice Creek Watershed District and the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Don Hereau,2260 Buckingham Lane,asked that the Council consider providing a sound barrier between the
trucking company and the south edge of Townsedge Terrace to help with noise in their park from the trucks.
He would also ask the City Council to work with Ramsey County and the City of New Brighton for a fence on
the West end of Townsedge Terrace. He also wished to commend the Mounds View Police Department for
their response to a recent problem at their park.
Mayor McCarty stated he would look at Mr.Hereau's requests along with city staff and will respond as soon as
possible.
Cameron Obert,8315 Greenwood Drive,asked for a brief update on the Anoka County Airport and MAC's
response to the city's correspondence.
. Bob Long,City Attorney,provided an update,stating that the City Council drafted and sent a letter to MAC,
objecting to their updated Comprehensive Plan. To date,they have not responded to the letter and he would
suggest that the City Council request that MAC be present at one of the next City Council meetings and provide
a response to the Council's concerns.
Mayor McCarty asked that the Clerk Administrator send a letter to MAC requesting their presence at an
upcoming City Council meeting.
Ed LeTendre,2088 Rusted Lane,introduced the Council to some young residents who were in attendance and
wished to address the Council about a Community Center.
Mikandra Ristow,2103 Cornell Drive,stated a group of youth have accumulated over fourteen pages of
community service hours that they have put in at the Bel Rae. She provided a petition containing
approximately 60 signatures of people who would like to see the Bel Rae used as a Community Center. She
stated they would all appreciate the Council's consideration in this matter.
Megan Ristow,2103 Cornell Drive,stated the Community Center provides youth with an alternative to being
out on the streets and she would like to see the Bel Rae used as a community center. Mike Ristow,on behalf
of many other residents,thanked Ed LeTendre for all that he has done for Mounds View.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Hearing and Introduction for first reading of Ordinance No.596,Amending Section 1106.02,
Subd.2 and 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow Eight Children in Family Foster Homes:
Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Page 4 , 'i F.
February 24, 1997 App
Mounds View City Council ,
Ms.Pam Sheldon explained that this amendment would allow homes that are governed under the Department
of Human Services and under the Department of Corrections could have up to eight children. A second
reading and action on this Ordinance amendment would be scheduled for March 10, 1997.
Don Hereau,2260 Buckingham Lane,wondered if this ordinance would affect the number of children allowed
at the Homer House property.
Mayor McCarty explained that this would not apply to professionally staffed facilities,but rather to foster
homes where parents reside in a home atmosphere.
Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the Introduction of Ordinance No.596,Amending
Section 1106.02,Subd.2 and 3 of the Mounds View Zoning code to Allow Eight Children in Family Foster
Homes,and to waive the reading thereof.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Linder's Greenhouse at Mounds
View Shopping Center,2535-2585 Highway 10.
Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. •
Jim Ericson,Planning Associate,explained that this would allow for the operation of an outdoor flower mart in
the parking lot of Mounds View Square. Linder's was issued CUPS for the 1995 and 1996 growing season and
no changes are proposed to the location,layout and operation from previous years. Mr.Ericson explained the
agreed upon deposits and charges for water service. He noted that the following conditions would be a part of
the Conditional Use Permit:
1) the facility shall be allowed to operate from March 15, 1997 to July 15, 1997;
2) the hours of operation shall not exceed 8:00 am.to 9:00 p.m.;
3) only the signage shown on the Greenhouse Design Plan shall be allowed;and
4) all lighting for the use shall be supplied by existing parking lot lighting and supplemental interior lighting,if
needed.
David Jahnke,8428 Eastwood Road,asked how the$1.00 per day water charge was derived. Mr.Ericson
explained that this figure was established by the Public Works Department,based upon the amount used in past
years.
Lynn Gustafson,(no address given),asked if Linder's would be doing any fertilization in the greenhouse.
She noted that the State Agricultural Department requires back flow prevention devices so that the fertilizer
doesn't go back into the water system. Jim Ericson agreed to check on this matter.
Bob Long,City Attorney,suggested that a"hold harmless agreement"be entered into as well with Linder's for
the use of the city's water system.
Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Pages 24 February , APPROVED 1997
411 Mounds View City Council
MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No.5090,Resolution Approving a
Conditional Use Permit for Linder's Greenhouse to Operate an Outdoor Flower Mart at Mounds View Square
Shopping Center,2535-2585 Highway 10,AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE CONDITIONS REQUIRING A
BACK FLOW CHECK VALVE AND A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Public Hearing of Old Highway 8 Reconstruction Project
Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:51 p.m.
Mike Ulrich,Director of Public Works,provided the Council and public with a brief background of the Old
Highway 8 project. He noted that the total project cost is approximately$1.4 million,with Mounds View's
contribution being proposed at approximately$330,000. He provided a diagram showing the new alignment
of Old Highway 8.
Pam Darsie,2268 Buckingham Lane,asked how close the new roadway will be to the park office. She stated
her concern about traffic and their children's safety when the office is being used as a recreational center for
them. Mr.Ulrich indicated on the diagram the location of the new roadway. It was estimated that it will be
moved 35 feet to the west,but will be within the curb right-of-way.
• Mr.Larry(inaudible)of the Ramsey County Public Works Department was present and noted that stakes could
be erected or the area painted to indicate the new alignment for residents to assess the impact it could have.
He stated he would see that this is completed within the next week.
John Holmes,5012 Londonary Avenue,stated his home will runs adjacent to the property where the roadway
will be and wondered if any type of sound barrier will be constructed
Mr.Ulrich stated that no sound barrier has been proposed for this project at this time.
Mayor McCarty asked that Mr.Ulrich schedule a time when he could get together with some of the residents of
Townedge Terrace to answer in more detail questions that they may have in regard to the proposed project.
If anything is left unresolved,time will be set aside at the next Council work session to discuss this matter.
Henry Ruggles,2629 Lake Court Drive,stated he feels it is very difficult for cars and trucks to navigate onto
Highway 10. He wondered how and what traffic controls will be used at the new intersection to help improve
the problem. Mr.Ulrich noted that the county will be putting a right-hand turn lane in on Old Highway 8 to
access Highway 10.
Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m.
Mayor McCarty asked if adoption of Resolution No.5091 will in any way change or hinder resident's
opportunity for input and impact on this project. Mr.Ulrich noted that it would not,and that residents would
still have an opportunity,per the charter,to petition the improvements. The bid award is expected to come
before the City Council for approval at the April 28th meeting.
Mayor McCarty noted a minor change to Resolution No.5091. The tenth paragraph should be changed to
read,".. . specifications HAS BEEN advertised for the project.
Page 6 ADppnicn
February 24, 1997 ` a L
Mounds View City Council •
MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No.5091,Considering Old Highway 8
Reconstruction,AS AMENDED.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Public Hearing and Introduction for First Reading of Ordinance No.594,An Ordinance Amending
Chapter 606,607 and 1005 of the Mounds View Municipal Code related to the requirement to mow tall
grasses and creating an exemption for wetland and native vegetation.
Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m.
Mr.Jim Ericson noted that approval of Ordinance No.594 would allow for exemptions to the Mounds View
Code. Presently,the City Code specifies that tall grass(over 8"in height)must be cut,without exemptions.
This ordinance would allow for certain areas to be exempted from this provision. Mr.Ericson proceeded to go
through these exemptions.
Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:13 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Koopmeiners to Approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. 594,An Ordinance
amending Chapter 606,607 and 1005 of the Mounds View Municipal Code related to the requirement to mow
tall grasses and creating an exemption for wetland and native vegetation,and to waive the reading thereof
41111
Mayor McCarty noted that he cannot support this Ordinance. He feels this could cause problems in
neighborhoods where one homeowner chooses to have natural plantings and windblown seeds from their yards
invade other carefully manicured properties. He feels this"broad brush approach"will only create problems.
Ms.Trude noted that a landscape plan such as this would require the approval of the Community Development
Director.
Mayor McCarty stated he thinks the ordinance allows for the development and cultivation of natural areas and
that the approval of the Director is only to assure that it is done properly.
Jerry Linke noted that this situation is only new to Mounds View. In New Brighton experienced a situation
very similar several years ago and when the city required the homeowner to mow the grasses,the homeowner
fought and won the case.
Council member Stigney felt perhaps the staff could make some modification to the Ordinance requiring
approval from adjacent property owners. Mayor McCarty noted that when a property is sold,the new
homeowner may not be in agreement.
Council member Trude asked staff to check with the City of New Brighton and have the Planning Commission
revisit the issue to see if a proposed change should be made. She felt perhaps the Introduction of Ordinance
No.594 should be tabled until the next council meeting.
MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Koopmeiners to table the Introduction of Ordinance No. 594.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
11111
opt ry
Fan
Page 7 R '� ?i
February 24, 1997
1111 Mounds View City Council
Public Hearing and Introduction for First Reading of Ordinance No.595,An Ordinance adding day
care centers and group nurseries as a Conditional Use in the B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4 and I-1 zoning districts.
Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Ms.Sheldon explained that Ordinance was prompted in part by a request by the Children's Home Society to go
into the Bel Rae if it is converted to a Community Center. The property where the Bel Rae is located is
currently zoned B-3,which does not allow Day Care Centers as a permitted use. Additionally,it was felt that
this change would also allow for the possibility of on-site daycare for some of the employers in the community.
Julie Olson,2663 Lake Court Circle,felt this may allow for a Kinder Care to locate in an industrial park.
She feels perhaps the Ordinance may be too broad.
Ms. Sheldon noted a that conditional uses would require special review by the Planning Commission and the
City Council therefore the suitability of the site could be addressed in that process.
A discussion followed in regard to concerns about the possibility of a child care facility locating within a close
proximity of adult establishments or liquor stores. Ms.Trude stated she would like to see some distance
requirements established to prevent potential problems such as this. There was also discussion as to the
possibility of re-zoning the Bel Rae property,however Ms.Sheldon noted that this could place other
11111 restrictions on the property. Council member Stigney noted that he would like to obtain information in regard
to the safety level for a child's exposure to exhaust fumes.
Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing at 8:33 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Trude to Table the Introduction of Ordinance No. 595,to allow staff time to
obtain additional information.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A. Status Report on Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 10.
Ms. Sheldon provided a summary as to the status of the proposed pedestrian bridge project. She noted that at
the last City Council meeting,several issues were raised and the council wished to continue the discussion at
the February 24th meeting. Ms. Sheldon proceeded to address each of the issues-the extent of public notice
and participation,the projected costs and sources of funding for the bridge,and the impact or usefulness of the
bridge. She also went through the estimated budget for the project,detailing three different financing
scenarios for the local costs. She noted that there is sufficient funds available in Tax Increment Financing
funds to pay part or all of the local costs. Additionally,MSA funds could be used,however timing for future
road projects would need to be adjusted.
Mayor McCarty thanked Ms.Sheldon for all the work she has done on this project and the long hours she has
worked. However,he still has concerns that he feels need to be addressed. If the city intends to keep faith with
the spirit and intent of Chapter 8 of the City Charter,it would not go forth with projects which get out of hand
• in cost overruns. In regard to his concerns about the sources of funding,in particular the street lighting funds,
he stated he feels taxpayers expected the funds to be used for streetlights in their own neighborhoods,not for
• =0 ;i 1\ n
Page8 L
February 24, 1997
Mounds View City Council
the bridge project He stated there has been no evidence by expert testimony or scientific study and
demographics,traffic analysis or a needs assessment to support any claim that a pedestrian bridge on Long
Lake Road will offer a broad benefit to the majority of Mounds View citizens.
Furthermore he sees a safety issue with regard to the design of the ramp and where the spiral ramp empties,the
compatibility of skateboards/bicycles/rollerblading and foot traffic on the bridge deck Long term maintenance
estimates are limited to best guesses,and no provisions have been made for future replacement costs. The cost
of the project has escalated from the original$120,000 estimate to approximately$246,500,representing a
105%cost overrun. He feels all of this makes this project unfeasible for the city at this time.
MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Koopmeiners that the City Council stop all further action on the pedestrian
bridge over Highway 10,settle all accounts owed to date,abandon the bridge project and notify appropriate
government agencies of this action.
Jerry Linke,2319 Knoll Drive,stated as Mayor he found the financing options while working with the city
auditors and temporary finance department head. At that time,he had been informed that tax increment
financing was not a financing option,as would have been his first choice. He noted that the city does have
letters of support from both the Police Chief and the Minnesota State Patrol. Without doubt,and in his
opinion,the$200,000 is worth saving a life and he still feels he made the right choice in voting approval of the
pedestrian bridge.
Jill(last name inaudible),a resident of Mounds View and a employee at Pinewood Elementary School,stated •
on a daily basis she witnesses cars that blatantly disregard children on the streets and walkways. She feels it is
unsafe to cross Highway 10. Furthermore,she feels it is very disrespectful to citizens who served on the Task
Force to now vote down the project She,as a taxpayer,is willing to pay for the bridge to allow citizens access
to the other side.
Russ Nordstrom,2536 W. County Road H2,stated he is opposed to the project and feels kids need to use
common sense. There are plenty of opportunities to cross the highway with the stoplight walk signs. He feels
kids are not going to take the time to walk the extra distance just to use the bridge,and he feels this would just
be a waste of taxpayer funds.
Karen Arciero,7501 Spring Lake Road,stated she feels the bridge is needed. She stated as an adult she is
often scared to cross Highway 10. She feels the city needs to provide a safe opportunity for kids to cross the
highway.
Henry Ruggles,2629 Lake Court Drive,stated he has been opposed to the bridge since the beginning. He too
feels that skateboarders will be using the bridge and cause seniors to be afraid to do so. Additionally,he is
concerned about how the costs have increased. He does not feel that the cost will justify the amount it will be
used.
David Jahnke,8428 Eastwood Road,stated he agrees it would be nice to have a safe option for kids to cross
the highway,but the city needs to consider what it can really afford.
Sherry Gunn,8120 Red Oak Court,stated Mounds View represents pride,partnership and progress. She feels
the bridge is a sign of progress for the city,and the community residents working with the council and staff
represents partnership. The bridge was a topic of the Focus 2000 group as a means of connecting the
community and she asked that the council let the work continue. •
A
i. ,'
rr
Page 9 ��' +e �
r
February 24, 1997
• Mounds View City Council
Joanne(inaudible),8493 Spring Lake Road,stated she is against the bridge because she does not feel the
location is appropriate. She feels it would be better to build it on County Road I. She also feels right now the
money would be better spent on making improvements to the roads in Mounds View.
Bruce Brasaemle,5127 Long Lake Road,stated he is in support of the bridge. He feels the council needs to
respect the citizen input of Focus 2000 and move forward. With the projected increase in traffic volume on
Highway 10,he feels there will be more potential for mishaps at the intersection. He has seen many cars go
through red lights there. He would like to see the bridge as an opportunity for the future residents.
Susan Do,2274 Oakwood Drive,thinks kids would use the bridge to get the library,as well as many adults and
families. The bridge would like many kids to the proposed community center. The city needs to move
forward. The life of even one child is worth much more than the cost that the city will incur.
Julie Olson,2663 Lake Court Circle,stated many of her neighbors are concerned about the effects of having a
bridge ramp coming right out into their back yards. Many residents of the townhome complex have
experienced damage and vandalism of their properties by kids and there is concerns that potential hangouts
could occur near the bridge and increase the occurrences.
Bruce Howard,President of the Ramsey County Library Board,stated he is present,on behalf of the Library
Board,to speak in favor of the bridge. They approved an easement with the city for the construction of the
• bridge and did so because they felt the bridge would provide greater access for residents to the library services.
He urged the Council to consider this and move forward.
Ernie Gustafson,2525 County Road I,stated he is opposed to the bridge. He feels grants such as the one
awarded to the city are the reason the federal government is in debt. He uses the Long Lake Road/Highway 10
intersection regularly and he never sees anyone using the crosswalk on the signals and he doesn't feel the bridge
will be used.
Ed Gemer,2103 Pinewood Drive,stated he is in support of the bridge. He lives next to 35W and he can
easily access Shoreview's parks to walk in. He cannot do that in Mounds View,nor can he use the library as he
does not feel safe crossing Highway 10 on foot.
Bill Fritz,8072 Long Lake Road,stated he is opposed to the bridge. He feels using the franchise fees to help
fund the bridge is dishonest. He feels the city would be spending a lot of money without much benefit. He
has rarely seen anyone use the pedestrian bridges in Columbia Heights and doesn't feel it would be used in
Mounds View either.
Cam Obert,8315 Greenwood Drive,feels the proposed bridge and community center are merely a moral test
for government to determine how they will take care of the residents. The government needs to move with the
times,and progress.
Tom Ernstor,2504 County Road 132,stated he is a bicyclist and would likely use the bridge. However,he is
not comfortable with the council making a decision on the bridge with the three different financing scenarios in
front of them. He stated he feels a firm financial statement needs to be developed to show exactly where the
funds to construct the bridge will come from.
11110
• A
Page 10 ADOQflRfl
February 24, 1997 U �d u
Mounds View City Council •
Mike Coon,7851 Eastwood Road,stated he is opposed to the bridge because he feels the proposed location is
not appropriate. He feels if the city were to build a bridge,it should be located at County Road I/Highway
10/Silver Lake Road,where there would be access to restaurants,convenience store,ballfields,etc.
Chuck Miller,Lake Court Dr.,stated he also feels the location is wrong for the proposed bridge. The funds
that are being proposed for the local costs are still taxpayer's money. He feels that money may be able to be
used for other projects. Furthermore,he feels providing the bridge will only be giving people a false sense of
security.
David Long,7749 Knollwood Drive,stated he is in favor of the bridge. He wondered why people who were in
favor of the bridge initially have not come to voice their objections.
Bill Werner,2765 Sherwood Road,stated he thinks people have finally become aware of the costs hgvv
decided to speak out against the bridge. He is opposed to the bridge.
Council member Trude stated it saddens her that after a statement has been said enough time,people actually
believe it to be true. She believes that is what has happened with the bridge project. The original budget was
for$190,000. The ponding project was paired with the bridge project and funds were set aside in surface
water management funds. The only cost that was not anticipated was$5,827.00 in legal fees E ,'"1T',11".11 fry
traffic signal modification neither of which are major or significant cost overruns for the project.
Ms. Sheldon explained that if the costs come in as estimated,there should be adequate funds to cover the
4110
anticipated costs.
Mayor McCarty noted there are several references to the original$120,000 local share cost up to 1996. In the
Fall of 1996 it escalated to$190,000 which represents a 30%increase.
Ms.Trude stated that funds have been set aside for this project. If council members find it inappr•!tide to
take moneys out of the various funds,the city could easily switch over to tax increment financing as a means of
funding the project. These Binds can only be used for limited things and this bridge would qualify as an
approved project. Ms.Trude stated this project can be looked at from an environmental standpoint,it will be
an investment in the future of the community and it will encourage kids to use amenities on the other side of the
highway. She feels the bridge will be used and urged the Council to stop and think. She feels legally the city
is bound to the contract that they entered
Mayor McCarty explained the tax increment financing process,and stated he feels it is more cost efficient to get
rid of the tax increment financing bonds and districts and get those property taxes back on the tax roles so that
the city can help out with other things. He is more concerned about education than he is about any lack of
concern for safety on the part of parents for their children.
Council member Koopmeiners asked how unanticipated additional costs will be covered.
Ms. Sheldon explained that the federal funding will not cover more than$480,000. Therefore,if the total
project cost is$600,000 or less,there will be a 80t20 split between the federal government and the city.
Mr.Koopmeiners stated he is opposed to the bridge project,noting that there is the possibility that the city will
need to come up with even more funds if they run into unanticipated problems. •
•
Page 11 APFO\ThD
February 24, 1997
• Mounds View City Council
Mr.Ayaz,Engineer with BRW,explained that he expects the bridge project to come in very close or lower
than the$600,000 estimate.
Ms.Trude asked Bob Long,City Attorney to address the issue of the city's contractual obligations. Mr.Long
stated,as he understands it,the city only has a contract with the Engineering/Design firm and that the city pays
them for the work. He could not comment on the nature of the federal grant. He noted,however that there are
two pieces of legislation now that are pending,which would dramatically affect the use of excess tax increment
therefore,if the city is considering the use of tax increment financing on this project,they should do so as it may
possibly not be available within the next several months.
VOTE on Motion to stop all further action on the Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 10,settle all accounts owed
to date and abandon the bridge project and notify the appropriate government agencies.
Mayor McCarty: aye
Council member Stigney aye
Council member Koopmeiners aye
Council member Trude nay
Council member Quick nay
Motion Carried(3-2)
110 B. Status of TIF Plan for Bel Rae.
Mr.Kessel explained that the city proposed having its public hearing on the proposed tax increment financing
plan for the Bel Rae project on March 24, 1997. However,final TIF plans could not be prepared due to lack of
information,and therefore,they were not presented to the County and School District 30 days in advance of the
proposed Public Hearing. Therefore,he recommended that the Public Hearing be changed to April 14, 1997.
REPORTS:
Report of Council members;
Trude: Ms.Trude stated she really lost faith in the community process and feels that very little
consideration was given to the public comments by the council.
Koopmeiners: No report.
Stigney: No report.
Quick: No report
Report of Mayor McCarty; No report
Report of Clerk Administrator. No report
Report of Staff: No report.
iReport of Attorney: No report
•
I - :
1
Page 12
February 24, 1997
Mounds View City Council
Mayor McCarty noted that the next Council Work Session will be held on March 3, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. The
next Council Meeting is on March 10, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m.
VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Respectfully submitted,
jai nin•
Tamara D. Saeflce
Recording Secretary
i
•
41111
UNAPPROVED
Page 1
March 10, 1997
4110
Mounds View City Council
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
8 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
9 RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA
10
11 Regular Meeting
12 March 10, 1997
13 Mounds View City Hall
14 2401 Hwy. 10,Mounds View,MN 55112
15 **********************************************************************************
16
17 CALL TO ORDER
18
19 The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m.on March 10, 1997.
20 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
21
22 ROLL CALL
23
24 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty,Council members Trude,
25 Quick,Koopmeiners and Stigney
26
27 ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting,Clerk Administrator
28 Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director
29 Steve Bubul,City Attorney
30
31 ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
32
33 There were no additions to the agenda.
34
35 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
36
37 February 24,1997-City Council Meeting:
38
39 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting on February
40 24, 1997,as presented.
41
42 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
43
44 ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES:
45
46 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-February 5.1997:
47
Page 2
March 10, 1997
Mounds View City Council •
1 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Quick to accept the Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 1997 as
2 presented..
3
4 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
5
6 SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS;
7
8 There was no Special Order of Business.
9
10 CONSENT AGENDA;
11
12 Mr. Whiting read the Consent Agenda as follows:
13
14 A. Adopt Resolution No. 5095,Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds.
15
16 B. Adopt Resolution No. 5093,requesting authorization to purchase a 1997 Crown Victoria from Superior
17 Ford.
18
19 C. consideration of Resolution No. 5094,Approving the hire of Margaret Burke,Recreation Program
20 Supervisor.
21
22 D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m.,Monday,March 24, 1997 to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an
23 oversized garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive.
24
25 E. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m.,Monday,March 24, 1997 to Consider Review of a Conditional Use
26 Permit for on-site mobile home sales at 2075 Rustad Lane.
27
28 G. LICENSES FOR APPROVAL:
29
30 HVAC License-Expires June 30. 1997:
31 Diamond Power Mechanical,Inc.-New
32
33 Council member Stigney asked that Item C.be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Council
34 member Koopmeiners requested that Item D.be removed for discussion.
35
36 MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Stigney to approve the Consent Agenda AS AMENDED.
37
38 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
39
40 Discussion of Item C.
41
42 Mr. Stigney stated it was his understanding that staff would wait to hire for the position of Recreation Program
43 Supervisor until the Council has had an opportunity to discuss personnel issues such as hiring practices,wages,
44 salary increases,etc. A meeting has been scheduled to discuss the personnel policy on April 7, 1997. He
45 would like to postpone hiring for the position at this time and direct staff to,if necessary,seeking the services
46 of a temporary employment agency during the interim.
47
4110
1
uNAppRovED
Page 3
March 10, 1997
IIIIII Mounds View City Council
1 MOTION by Stigney to postpone hiring for the Recreation Program Supervisor position until such time as the
2 Council has had an opportunity to review and discuss the Personnel Policy and authorize staff to hire a
3 temporary person during the interim.
4
5 MOTION by Koopmeiners to amend Council member Stigney's motion,and direct staff to hire a temporary for
6 a period of three months.
7
8 Discussions followed in regard to the cost of hiring temporary help through a job service versus filling the
9 position as requested by staff.
10
11 Council member Trude wondered if the cost would be greater to hire temporary help through an agency than it
12 would to fill the position. Furthermore,she had concerns as to the qualifications of temporary help for this type
13 of position. Discussion followed in regard to whether background checks would need to be completed or tl ;
14 temporary help as well and the costs involved in that process. It was noted that this position involves world g
15 with children and therefore background checks would be required.
16
17 Mayor McCarty stated,ideally,he would like to see staff be able to hold together without hiring additional help,
18 however if it would mean the loss of important programs,then he would suggest hiring temporary help to allow
19 the Council time to iron out issues of concern in the Personnel Policy.
20
021 Council member Trude was concerned that the city has already gone four months without help in the
22 department to set up playground programs and she is really concerned about the internal operations of the city.
23
24 Council member Koopmeiners stated he does not feel the city's Parks&Recreation Department staff have
25 gotten enough input from the School District. He does not see a cooperative effort between the School
26 District and the Park and Recreation Department and he feels something should be looked at seriously at the
27 school district level. He has had conversations with Mr.Temali of Community Education,and it appears that
28 they have interest in providing a staff member and/or help for the Park&Recreation Department and he does
29 not see that being generated.
30
31 Ms. Trude stated she feels that staff has been dragged around long enough. The pay for the position has
32 already be decreased by approximately$8,000 per year. She understood that council directed Mr.Whiting to
33 put the item on the agenda and that information would be provided to Council to answer questions they may
34 have. She noted that she has a substantial amount of information that has been provided in regard to this item.
35 Furthermore she feels that the idea of having temporary help come in to assist with children's programs will be
36 rather alarming to mothers in the community.
37
38 VOTE ON MOTION:
39
40 4 ayes 1 nay(Trude) Motion Carried
41
42 Discussion on Item D:
43
44 Mr.Koopmeiners stated he has some concerns on the Conditional Use Permit request for the oversized garage
45 at 2185 Pinewood Drive. He is concerned that the applicant has a number of engines in the existing garage
46 and that he intends to use the new garage for rebuilding engines. Additionally he has received two telephone
1047 calls from residents who are concerned about the aesthetics of the proposed building.
48
UNAPPROVED Page 4
March 10, 1997
Mounds View City Council
1 Mayor McCarty noted that the City Council is required to have the Public Hearing. Any concerns may be
2 addressed at the public hearing.
3
4 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to approve Item D.of the Consent Agenda,Setting a Public
5 Hearing for 7:05 p.m.,Monday, March 24, 1997 to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized garage
6 at 2185 Pinewood Drive.
7
8 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
9
10 RESIDENTS REOUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:
11
12 Bill Siercks,2210 Pinewood Drive,stated he recently received a letter the city Planning Commission
13 concerning the proposed oversized garage. The letter states that plans are available at the City Hall for review.
14 He noted that he came to City Hall and there are no plans available.
15
16 Ms. Sheldon explained that a copy of the plan is available for review. However,in regard to the actual
17 appearance of the garage,staff has requested that the applicant submit a sketch revealing what the proposed
18 building will look like. This is normally submitted at the time the applicant applies for a building permit,
19 however,staff has requested this information and expects to receive it prior to the Public Hearing.
20
21 Russ Nordstrom,2536 W.County Road H2,asked if the Council would consider setting some road limits on •
22 County Road 112. Numerous semi trucks use the roadway as a shortcut from Hwy.65 to the Interstate.
23 He feels they contribute to the deterioration of the roadway and imposing road limits would reduce the overall
24 maintenance costs.
25
26 Mayor McCarty stated he would direct the Public Works Department for further consideration.
27
28 Mr.Nordstrom also suggested that the city consider imposing a fine to those under 18 years of age who are
29 caught with cigarettes. Additionally,they could be required to do some community service. He feels the
30 government needs to make people responsible for their own actions and he feels this would be a better way to
31 approach the problem than to leave it as a store owners responsibility.
32
33 Council member Trude noted that she could foresee a problem enforcing the fines as the Police Department has
34 so many other pressing matters to attend to.
35
36 Don Hereau,2260 Buckingham Lane,Townsedge Terrace,stated he would like to see a"point of sale
37 inspection"enforced for mobile homes. He believes there was a city law on this that was put into force but
38 never enacted upon. It would require that inspections be completed on mobile homes and that the homes be
39 required to be brought up to code before they are sold.
40
41 Ms. Sheldon gave the Council a brief update on the pre-sale inspection policy. It was noted however,that the
42 city code does not state that the city is committed to making periodic inspections prior to the sale of the homes.
43 Staff will need to investigate and find out who has the authority and responsibility to conduct inspections,and
44 if it is the County's responsibility,(1992 State Law)staff will need to speak with them in this regard. Ms.
45 Sheldon noted that at this time,the city does not require notification when ownership of the mobile home is
46 transferred over. At this time,she does not feel there is enough in the City Code to be able to effectively carry
47 out the requests of the Townsedge Terrace residents. It would be up to the Council if they would like staff to •
48 get involved in this matter.
i
Page 5UNAPPROVED
March 10, 1997
IIIMounds View City Council •
1 Council member Trude stated she understood that when Mr.Hereau came in last year concerning this matter,
2 the City was going to enforce the Nuisance Code in all of the community,including the Mobile Home Parks.
3
4 Mayor McCarty stated staff would look into this matter and would get back to Mr.Hereau with an update.
5
6 Bill Rice,2932 County Road H2,asked for an update in regard to the procedure required to terminate the
7 actions taken in regard to the Pedestrian Bridge project. Ms.Trude provided an update.
8
9 Mayor McCarty noted that a legal opinion has not been provided by the City Attorney to date and he believes
10 there will be some additional steps necessary to put all of it in proper order.
11
12 Mr.Rice asked a number of other questions,such as the MMC charge on his Franchise Fees, how Mounds
13 View taxes compare with other communities,etc.
14
15 Brad Jahnke,8408 Eastwood Road,stated he is happy that the council has decided to re-examine salaries of
16 city staff.
17
18 Omar Kaste,7580 Greenfield Avenue,stated he has been paying an illumination fee for Greenfield Avenue,but
19 the residents there are not benefiting from it. He noted that the area is very dark and in need of lighting.
20
• 21 Mayor McCarty noted that there is a process set out under the Ordinance to petition for a street light. He urged
22 Mr.Kaste to contact City Hall for the procedure to follow to request lighting.
23
24 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
25
26 There were no Public Hearings scheduled for this meeting.
27
28 COUNCIL BUSINESS:
29
30 A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No.596,Amending Section 1106.02,Subd.2 and 3 of
31 the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow Eight Children in Foster Family Homes,Group Homes and
32 Group Foster Homes.
33
34 Ms. Sheldon,Director of Community Development gave a brief update on purpose of Ordinance No.596.
35
36 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No.
37 596,Amending Section 1106.02,Subd.2 and 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow Eight Children in
38 Foster Family Homes,Group Homes and Group Foster Homes,and to waive the reading.
39
40 ROLL CALL VOTE:
41
42 Mayor McCarty aye
43 Council member Trude aye
44 Council member Koopmeiners aye
45 Council member Quick aye
46 Council member Stigney aye
• 47
48 Motion Carried(5-0)
I p r-,
Page 6Ai AP R 0 L .
March 10, 1997
Mounds View City Council •
1 B. Consideration of Resolution 5081,a Resolution Ordering an Advisory Election Pursuant to Section
2 4.04 of the Mounds View City Charter and Providing for Election Procedures.
3
4 Mr.Whiting noted that he had drafted an Advisory Election Question for the Council's review. He noted that a
5 date needs to be established for the election;he is proposing that it be held on Saturday,April 5, 1997 with
6 voting being allowed at City Hall during normal work hours the two days prior to the election for those who are
7 unable to vote on April 5th. He would also like to set a public informational meeting on the Bel Rae for
8 Wednesday,April 2, 1997.
9
10 Mayor McCarty stated he would like some anticipated project costs provided on the ballot form so that
11 residents will have an idea of what the project will cost. He also felt it important to let residents know where
12 the revenues will come from.
13
14 Council member Trude asked how the election will be paid for. She noted that it was not budgeted for and
15 therefore the council will need to determine a funding source. If a budget amendment is done,a budget
16 resolution will need to be passed,amending the 1997 budget.
17
18 Mr.Whiting stated he talked with the City Attorney about whether specific financial details should be made a
19 part of the ballot. Some concern was addressed about whether the city should do this,realizing that only
20 architectural estimates have been submitted,not actual contractor estimates. Additionally potential revenue
21 sources may not wish to be identified at this point when no agreements have been entered into. In terms of the
22 ballot,Mr.Whiting noted that he experienced difficulty knowing whether he should present the question in
23 concept form or in actual estimated numbers. He feels much of the financial information could be presented
24 in greater detail at the informational meeting and through a mailing to the residents.
25
26 Steve Bubul,City Attorney stated the council must remember that the purpose of the election is strictly
27 advisory to allow for feedback. The council needs to consider how good the feedback will be if number are
28 provided that look very precise and then the final project ends up being different than that. Additionally,the
29 city will still be negotiating contracts and leases and they must be careful not to jeopardize negotiations by
30 adding specific rent numbers on the actual ballots. Some caution must be taken to ensure that the city does
31 not bind itself. He feels voters need to be provided with as much information as possible,however it must be
32 done cautiously. Background information such as mailings could provide a better explanation of the current
33 estimates,which he feels would be different than having numbers on the ballot and having residents vote on
34 particular numbers.
35
36 William Werner,2765 Sherwood Road,wondered why the information couldn't just be provided on the ballot
37 form with a clarification that the numbers are only estimates.
38
39 Council member Stigney suggested that ballots be sent out to residents along with the informational mailing if
40 the council is concerned about the cost of two mailings. He also noted that some"not to exceed"cost could
41 be provided on the financial information. Mr.Stigney stated he also would like the information to include the
42 loss of tax base incurred from the city now owning the Bel Rae property.
43
44 Naja Werner,2765 Sherwood Road asked if there will be anything on the ballot to indicate if the residents will
45 pay more in property taxes if the community center is approved.
46
47 Mr.Whiting stated the concept has been to insulate the city tax base from having to incur any increase in taxes •
48 for the community center. The city is currently looking at spending Tsx Increment Financing funds to cover the
. UNAPPROVED
Page 7
March 10, 1997
IIIMounds View City Council
1 up front construction of the project. Once the work is done,the city will not have any debt on the building but
2 will need to maintain it. However,the tenants involved would pay an annual lease for a period of time to help
3 defray the maintenance costs. He further noted that he cannot commit as to what the future council or
4 community may want to do with the building as far as add-ons or other improvements.
5
6 Ms.Werner stated she feels it would be beneficial to residents if staff would try to explain how Tax Increment
7 Financing works. She noted it is also important for residents to realize that TIF is not a"free lunch"either.
8
9 Omar Kaste,7850 Greenfield Avenue,stated he feels the planning of the project has been done responsibly.
10 He feels a community center is one small step in building a community and he feels the council needs to move
11 ahead. He stated he feels the numbers may be intimidating to many of the residents and does not feel that is
12 the approach the council should take.
13
14 A discussion followed in regard to the financial information that is to be provided to residents. It was felt that a
15 safe estimate in terms of cost would be$3,000,000 should be provided on the ballots. The acquisition costs
16 could be included on the accompanying information. This would provide residents with an idea of what the
17 city would need to recoup if the community center did not get approved and the building were sold.
18
19 Council member Koopmeiners stated he would propose that the amount on the ballot be increased to$3.3
20 million to include the cost of the gymnasium. If VB Digs proceeds with the gymnasium,the city would be
021 ahead. He feels either way,a gymnasium needs to be included.
22
23 Mayor McCarty felt the$3.3 million dollar estimate is reasonable. It was agreed that a cost estimate of$3.3
24 million would be included on the ballot.
25
26 Mr.Whiting stated he would like to have the voting take place on Saturday,April 5, 1997 from 8:00 a.m.to
27 3:00 p.m. Additionally,residents would have the option of voting on Thursday,April 3rd or on Friday,April
28 4th during work hours for those who are unable to vote on Saturday. A discussion followed in regard to
29 whether the voting should be done via mail ballots. Mayor McCarty stated he feels there would be a greater
30 response with mail ballots.
31
32 The council authorized Mr.Whiting to investigate the options and report back Mayor McCarty also noted that
33 the council will need a recommendation as to a funding source for the election.
34
35 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to Approve Resolution No. 5081, Resolution Ordering an
36 Advisory Election Pursuant to Section 4.04 of the Mounds View City Charter and Providing for Election
37 Procedures,incorporating the date of the election as April 5, 1997.
38
39 VOTE: 4 ayes 1 nay(Trude) Motion Carried
40
41 REPORTS:
42 Report of Council members:
43
44 Trude: No report
45
46 Koopmeiners: Council member Koopmeiners reminded residents of the Planning Commission meeting on
0 47 March 19th at 7:00 p.m. at the Bel Rae building to discuss the property South of Highway 10,East of Long
48 Lake Road and North of County Road H2.
Page 8 UNAPPROVED
March 10, 1997
Mounds View City Council
1 Stignev: No report.
2
3 Quick: No report
4
5 Report of Mayor McCarty: Mayor McCarty noted that he had a copy of the League of MN Cities Bulletin
6 and he would make it available to other council members for review.
7
8 Report of Clerk Administrator. Mr.Whiting provided a brief update on recent meetings he attended.
9
10 Report of Staff: No report.
11
12 Report of Attorney: No report.
13
14 Mayor McCarty noted that the next Council Work Session will be held on March 17, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. The
15 next Council Meeting is on March 24, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
16
17 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Koopmeiners to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
18
19 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
20
21 Respectfully submitted,
22 111
23 Tamara D. Saefke
24 Recording Secretary
25
26
27
28
29
30
41111
MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
i
/1. 1,e ie /U, /q97
Ce_ers•-e, • 1�% Please sign
L_____ NAME ADDRESS
,,/e---;-7,-- - , -,/ ' , --- :2:2-Z,e . • :1 ' g,,,-, I/4/
Q- soi-Z - ci
/ �� Com. h►.
ci-e+/e Je_h ti.
gil ---C e r t'-fS,S /6 ANewo cy c7 17, ye,.)
A di R t-iii2, 4v 9`b 47, - 2 ,z y R ci • /-/ • a,
RAI led() 6a(.1 Sher Li/dal Rd .
go9i) , la% k E - F%%) , ,f ,
1��1 V�__v.
OMPrK KASTE 7 a ,
6(.5.5 4-4- &- a$?b (�, . y a gl___
•
' Aro .ICA,/7 A ' /24 -2Qr-3 7 C.-1(ai)( lY 4 ,..;,r. k./evi,wori,,
/A I %E lZ i /(, ) 7 6' S}l Z7<1) a °--- .,e,- -
(,) . Werner 2-7 A— Slier wozd OLd
LO P1N .1 2123 F( flAiLs'.Sa t 51) l.ovtS P
4ttivir ?/3v
R i' G.C.iik � --
/27g7-1, 177-t /1-_e i .i_, (' /744 -fia 7
�Sco t 1 Heber 1916 /4,on > r
,S•
•
Item No. SA SE,
• Staff Report No. cn--QOM C. 4-
Meeting Date: 3/24/97 420C/C
Type of Business: WK
• WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Bruce Kessel k
From: Lynnette Morgamp
Item Title/Subject: Step Adjustments/for Planning Associate and Engineering Aide
Date of Report: March 20, 1997
The following positions are due to receive step adjustments. As outlined in the City's
Compensation Policy, advancement from the initial Step 1 occurs six months after the
employee's date of hire, or reclassification, and on the employee's anniversary date thereafter
until the employee reaches Step 5. Advancement to each step occurs only after a performance
evaluation rated satisfactory or better has been conducted by the employee's supervisor and
approved by the Department Head, City Administrator and the City Council. Therefore, attached
resolutions recommend step adjustments for Jim Ericson, Planning Associate and Jim Hess,
Engineering Aide.
Jim Ericson has been with the City of Mounds View in the capacity of Planning Associate since
0 August 30, 1996. Jim is currently at Step 1, $2,271.77/mo. His work performance has been
satisfactorily reflected in his performance review and staff is recommending a step adjustment to
Step 2, $2,413.75.
Jim Hess has been with the City of Mounds View since February 25, 1992. Jim is currently at
Step 3, $3,082.22/mo. His work performance has been satisfactorily reflected in his performance
review and staff is recommending a step adjustment to Step 4, $3,253.46.
Both step adjustments are consistent with the City's 5 Step Compensation Plan.
0
A
RESOLUTION NO. 5099
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW •
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR
JIM ERICSON, PLANNING ASSOCIATE
WHEREAS, Jim Ericson has been with the City of since August 30, 1996; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ericson's work performance has met the responsibilities of Planning
Associate as outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, his work performance has been satisfactorily reflected in his performance
review; and
WHEREAS, a wage adjustment that is consistent with the City's Compensation Policy is
recommended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council hereby
•
approves a step adjustment for Jim Ericson from $2,271.77/mo. to $2,413.75/mo. effective
March 30, 1997.
Presented this 24th day of March, 1997
ATTEST:
Mayor McCarty
(SEAL)
Clerk Administrator Charles S. Whiting
RESOLUTION NO. 5100
410 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR
JIM HESS, ENGINEERING AIDE
WHEREAS, Jim Hess began working for the City of Mounds View on February 25,
1992; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hess's work performance has met the responsibilities of Engineering
Aide as outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, his work performance has been satisfactorily reflected in his performance
review; and
WHEREAS, a wage adjustment that is consistent with the City's Compensation Policy is
recommended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council hereby
approves a step adjustment for Jim Hess from $3,082.22/mo. to $3,253.46/mo. effective April 1,
1997.
Presented this 24th day of March, 1997
ATTEST:
Mayor McCarty
(SEAL)
Clerk Administrator Charles S. Whiting
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
COMPENSATION POLICY
PURPOSE:
This chapter of the Administrative Code established policies governing compensation. The
Chapter described specific policies of the three Phases of the Compensation Policy:
Phase I. the Five Step Compensation Plan
Phase II. the Annual Compensation Adjustment; and
Phase III. The State-mandated Pay Equity Act, its implementation and maintenance
OBJECTIVES:
1. To develop and maintain a Comprehensive Policy which will attract and retain
competent personnel.
2. To establish and maintain a compensation schedule consistent with the Pay Equity
Act of 1984 and its subsequent amendments.
3. To provide a climate in which employees will be encouraged to develop their abilities and
effectiveness in performing assigned duties.
4. To recognize the quality of job performance demonstrated by each employee.
5. To establish and maintain compensation levels which are competitive with those
provided by comparable jurisdictions.
6. To maintain an overall compensation policy with sufficient flexibility to meet
changing economic and competitive conditions.
PHASE I. FIVE STEP COMPENSATION PLAN
A. USE OF STANTON MEAN
The City shall use a Five (5) Step Compensation Plan for regular, full-time and part-time
employees not represented by a collective bargaining unit. The Five Step Compensation Plan is
the first phase of the overall compensation policy and shall consist of five (5) increments with the
highest step, Step 5, being equal to 100% of the mean of the DCA Stanton Group 5 cities
contained in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Salary Survey published annually by the DCA
Stanton Group. The steps shall descend from Step 5 in increments of 5%. The values for the
Steps are indicated below:
STEP 5 COMPENSATION PLAN
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
80% 85% 90% 95% 100% •
B. PROGRESS THROUGH THE STEP PLAN
• 1. Advancement from the initial Step 1 occurs at six months after employee's the
date of hire and on the employee's anniversary date thereafter until the employee
reaches Step 5, unless otherwise recommended by the City Administrator and
approved by the City Council.
2. Advancement to each step shall occur only after a performance evaluation rated
satisfactory or better has been conducted by an employee's supervisory and
approved by the Department Head, City Administrator, and the City Council.
3. The City Administrator shall determine and make recommendations to the City
Council at which step a new employee shall begin on the Five Step Plan. The
initial Step placement shall be based on experienced and training.
C. STEP 5 ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT
1. The Stanton Mean for each position will be adjusted annually. In ori r=,:t;: ;:G�.�. a4
consistent with the fluctuations of the Stanton Group 5 Mean and to also remain
consistent with each position's professional compensation comparison.
2. In July of each year, DCA Stanton published the current year's position salary
ranges and position means. If, in July, it is indicated that the Stanton mean for a
position is higher than originally projected at the end of the previous year, the
• position's Step will be adjusted in December to the July Stanton mean. The new
Step 5 will become the year end Step 5 for purposed of calculating the subsequent
year's highest salary step.
3. A sample computation is indicated below:
(All calculations in each sample computation are based on monthly salary)
STEP 5 ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT
MONTHLY SALARY
CURRENT YEAR STEP 5 $1758
JULY STANTON MEAN $1775
DIFFERENCE $17
ADJUSTED STEP 5 $1775
D. TIME FRAME
The annual adjustment of a position's Step 5, not represented by a collective bargaining unit,
shall occur prior to the end of December and prior to the Annual Compensation Adjustment or
0 any Pay Equity Adjustment. The Adjusted Step 5 is a calculation used to determine the
subsequent year's Step 5 and is not implemented until the following January 1st.
1
E. COMPENSATION STABILITY
In the event a position's Step 5 pay is in excess of the Stanton Mean, as indicated by the July
•
publication, the difference will be allowed to continue with annual charges in the step plan
limited only to the change in the Annual Compensation Adjustment or any Pay Equity
Adjustment.
F. NON-STANTON POSITIONS
In the event a position does not have a DCA Stanton Comparable position, the City
Administrator will survey other cities to determine a position equivalent.
G. SALARY ADJUSTMENT RESULTING FROM PROMOTIONS
In the event an employee receives a promotion into a position of higher responsibility, a salary
adjustment shall be made consistent with a comparable Stanton position or position survey as
previously outlines, and the initial step level shall be consistent with experience and
qualifications.
H. DEPARTMENT HEAD STANTON ADJUSTMENTS
In 1992, all Department Heads will be adjusted to 90% of the Stanton mean for their respective
positions. In 1993, an adjustment will be made to 95%of the mean and in 1994,the adjustment
will be equal to 100% of the Stanton mean. All adjustments will be based on quality of
performance and subject to the availability of funds and Council approval prior to each scheduled
increase.
•
PHASE II. ANNUAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT
A. DEFINITION
1. The Annual Compensation Adjustment is the Council-approved annual
compensation increase formally defined as the Cost of Living Adjustment
(COLA).
B. TIME FRAME
1. The Step Five of each position will be adjusted at the end of each year for all
regular full-time and part-time employees not represented by a collective
bargaining unit, by the Mounds View City Council's approval of the Annual
Compensation Adjustment (ACA). The percentage increase approved by the
Council will be the second phase in the overall compensation policy. The ACA
will establish the Step 5 for the subsequent year unless an additional step, a Pay
Equity Adjustment is determined as outlined in Phase III of the Compensation
Policy.
2. A sample computation is indicated below:
ANNUAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT
. CURRENT YEAR STEP 5 $1758
ADJUSTED STEP 5 $1775
COUNCIL APPROVED ACA OF 3%* $53
SUBSEQUENT YEAR STEP 5** $1828
C. CRITERIA FOR ANNUAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT (ACA)
1. The ACA shall be granted only when earned based on demonstrated on-the-job
performance, supported by the recommendation of the immediate supervisory and
preceded by a year-end performance evaluation rated satisfactory or above.
2. All recommendations will be reviewed by the City Administrator who will
recommend approval or denial of the ACA to the City Council for final approval.
3. If a performance evaluation is rated less than satisfactory or it is determined tl a�.
the employee has areas of job performance which need improvement,the
employee may receive less than the full ACA percentage increase.
PHASE III. PAY EQUITY COMPLIANCE AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The State of Minnesota's Pay Equity Law requires that:
"every political subdivision of this state shall establish equitable compensation
relationships between female-dominated, male-dominated and balanced classes of
employees in order to eliminate sex-based wage disparities in public employment in the
state."(MS. 471.992, subd. 1)
"'Equitable compensation relationship'means that the compensation for female-
dominated classes is not consistently below the compensation for male-dominated classes
of comparable work values..."(MA. 471.991, subd. 5).
A. In order to comply with the Pay Equity Law, the City Administrator shall annually
conduct an analysis of compensation using the job evaluation study method determined
by the City Council.
B. The Pay Equity Analysis and any subsequent compensation adjustment represents the
final Step in the overall compensation process.
C. The compensation analysis shall consist of several factor, including but not limited to the
following:
1. Specific analysis of female-dominated positions which appear to be paid
consistently below male-dominated positions.
•
2. Adherence to the compliance tests as put forth in the Department of Employee
Relations Pay Equity Regulations.
3. Recruitment and retention practices and patterns.
•
D. ANALYSIS
1. A compensation analysis shall be conducted each September to determine the
compensation patterns for all job classifications. The analysis will be presented to
the Department Heads no later than October 1st for review and comment.
E. ADDITIONAL RE-EVALUATIONS/NEW CLASSIFICATION EVALUATION
1. When substantial changes in an assigned classification have occurred, a position
evaluation shall be conducted.
2. When a new classification has been established a position evaluation shall be
conducted after the employee has completed 12 months of service in that position.
3. In those instances where the City Administrator determines that the job evaluation
points derived from a benchmark or jurisdictional score do not reflect the job,the
City Administrator may survey similar jobs in other jurisdictions in order to
provide an accurate score and may also provide for the testing of the position. •
F. PAY EQUITY ADJUSTMENT
A Pay Equity Adjustment will be necessary if:
1. The Annual Analysis indicates a pattern of compensation for female and male-
dominated classes which is inconsistent with the requirements of State Law and
the Pay Equity Regulations as set forth by the Department of Employees
Relations.
2. In the event a Pay Equity Adjustment is indicated by the analysis, it will be
implemented on the following January first and will be the final phase in the
overall compensation process to determine the subsequent year's Step 5.
3. Position classes will be determined to be female-dominated or male-dominated
based on the requirements stated in Minnesota Statutes 471.991, Subdivision 6-8.
4. A sample computation is indicated below and demonstrates the three steps of the
overall compensation process and the timelines for adjustments:
•
Process Timeline With Pay Equity Without Pay
Adjustments Equity Adjus_i eats
• CurrentStep5 January1758 1758
yr
Adjusted Step 5 December 1775 1775
ACA(3%) December 1828 1828
Effective 1/1
Pay Equity Adjustment December 50 -0-
Effective 1/1
Subsequent Year's Step 5 January 1 1878 1828
G. APPEAL
An employee may submit an appeal of a job evaluation value change. All appeals must be filed
with the employee's supervisory no later than November 1st of each year. A determination
regarding the appeal will be made by the City Administrator no later than December 1st.
H. MAINTENANCE OF THE JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM
• 1. State law requires that all job evaluation systems be: "maintained and updated to
account for new employee classes and any changes in factors affecting the
comparable worth value of existing classes."
2. Each job class in Mounds View's job evaluation system will be reviewed once
every three (3) years to determine the need for more detailed re-evaluation. If
indicated, re-evaluation of selected employee classes will occur prior to
September as part of the annual compensation analysis. The City Administrator
shall determine which class(es) of employees will be reviewed each year and
which of these classes require more detailed re-evaluation. Changes, if any, in job
evaluation points will become effective the following January 1st.
I. PROCEDURE FOR PAY EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS FOR YEAR 1992
1. The initial Pay Equity Adjustment for 1992 will be paid prior to December 31,
1991.
2. All other Pay Equity Adjustments in 1992 will be included in bi-weekly pay at the
same time as other bi-weekly compensation.
Adopted January 13, 1992
RESOLUTION NO. 5101
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
111/1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING JUST AND CORRECT
CLAIMS AGAINST CITY FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of Mounds View, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 412.241, has full authority over the financial affairs
of the City and;
WHEREAS, The City Council has reviewed the claims numbers:
54814 through 54923 in the amount of $ 117,219.45
51142 through 51166 in the amount of $ 113,665.99
through in the amount of $
through- in the amount of $
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED $ 230,885.44
and has found said claims to be just and correct;
(list1110
of anyexception)
tion P )
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of Mounds View
hereby approved the attached lists of claims dated 3/25/97 by the
vote ayes nayes
ATTEST:
(SEAL) Mayor
Clerk-Administrator
111/0
PAGE 1 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER
AP-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW
VENDOR CHECtc: CHECK INVOICE INVOICE
002 VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT
MINN DEPT OF NATURAL * 54814 03/25/97 03/10/97 20.00
VENDOR TOTAL 20.00
51102 RUDEK, NATALIE 54815 03/25/97 03/25/97 38.00
.00
VENDOR TOTAL 38.00
52215 BOYLES, JAMES M 54816 03/25/97 03/25/'7 24.00
VENDOR TOTAL 24.00
73200 IRONDALE H.S. TRACK B* 54117 03/25/97 03/25/97 500.00
VENDOR TOTAL 500.00
73201 TEIGEN, ELLEN 54818 03/25/97 03/25/97 34.50
VENDOR TOTAL 34.50
73202 ANDERSON, GARY 54319 03/25/97 03/25/97 45.00
VENDOR. TOTAL 45.00
73203 DRAIN KING INC 54820 03/25/97 03/25/97 175.50
VENDOR TOTAL 175.50
73204 K:OSTUCH, TONY 54821 03/25/97 03/25/97 21 .36
VENDOR TOTAL 2.1 . 6
w'5 Z I NDA DIANE 82 - 2� 9, 03/25/97 38.00
VENDOR TOTAL 38.00
73209 CHARLTON, JULIE 54823 03/25/97 03/25/97 25.00
VENDOR TOTAL 25.00
A0895 ACTION PRESS, INC. 54824 03/25/97 2:819 03/12/P7 298. =,7
54824 03/25/97 03/01/97 102.61
VENDOR TOTAL 401 .48
A2700 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 54825 03/25/97 03/25/97 283. 14
54825 03/25/97 40-90596-11 03/05/97 270.70
54325 03/25/97 40-90597-11 03/05/97 245.02
VENDOR TOTAL 798.86
A3500 ALBERG WATER SERVICES• 54826 03/25/97 10576 02/28/97 2000.020
VENDOR TOTAL 2000.00
A5123 AMERICAN OFFICE PRODU* 54827 03/25/97 306:378 03/14/97 169.25
54827 03/25/97 97 306653 0=�/07/9
/�ti/:� :.7 184.25
54827 03/25/97 306586 03/07/97 112.60
54827 03/25/97 306486 03/07/97 14.89
54827 03/25/97 306474 03/07/97 '716. 39
54827 03/25/97 306651 03/07/97 35.27
0
54827 03/25/97 306630 03/07/9741 . 31
54827 03/25/97 304x.55 03/07/97 x..42
^
PAGE 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER
AP-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW
VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE
VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT
S
54827 03/25/97 306366 02/28/97 186.93
54827 03/25/97 306387 02/28/97 140.32
54827 03/25/97 306257 02/28/97 128.79
54827 03/25/97 306521 02/28/97 155.20
VENDOR TOTAL 1211 .70
A6965 ARDEN HILLS, CITY OF 54829 03/25/97 02/25/97 513.22
VENDOR TOTAL 513.22
B0661 BATTERIES PLUS 54830 03/25/97 D16487 03/07/97 42.59
'VENDOR TOTAL 42.59
B2005 BEISSWENGER'S 54831 03/25/97 239848 02/24/97 6.77
54831 03/25/97 244384 03/07/97 18.09
54831 03/25/97 244140 03/06/97 15.43
54831 03/25/97 246666 03/12/97 29.46
54831 03/25/97 243646 03/05/97 25.02
54831 03/25/97 244544 03/07/97 4.90
54831 03/25/97 196691 12/02/96 1 .92
54831 03/25/97 219292 01/09/97 .84
54831 03/25/97 246979 03/13/97 7.54
54831 03/25/97 249165 03/19/97 3.48
54831 03/25/97 245824 03/10/97 7.25
4111 54831 03/25/97 19113311/24/96 57.23
VENDOR TOTAL 177.93
B2050 BEST BUY CO. , INC. 54833 03/25/97 0110110512 03/17/97 5.31
54833 03/25/97 0110110106 03/09/97 19.60
54833 03/25/97 0070114920 03/10y97 536.71
54833 03/25/97 0070114922 03/10/97 69.99
VENDOR TOTAL 631 .61
B3200 BOB'S PERSONAL COFFEE* 54834 03/25/97 97331 03/03/97 23.99
VENDOR TOTAL23.99
B5982 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 54835 03/25/97 539334 12/10/96 63.47-
54835 03/25/97 539598 11/05/96 253.38
VENDOR TOTAL ' 189.91
B7180 BUMPER TO BUMPER 54836 03/25/97 D50998 03/03/97 3.88
54836 03/25/97 D51722 ' 03/13/97 2.96
54836 03/25/97 D51720 03/13/97 65.58
54836 03/25/97 D51733 03/13/97 4.57
54836 03/25/97 D51612 03/11/97 .97
54836 03/25/97 D51046 03/03/97 20.61
54836 03/25/97 D51047 03/03/97 48.08
.- 54836 03/25/97 D51182 03/05/97 70.80
VENDOR TOTAL 217.45
All CAR-X 54838 03/25/97 SP03004 03/05/97 35.96
PAGE 3 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER
AP-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW
VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE .
VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT
5483 03/25/97 491920 09/10/96 5.51-
VENDOR TOTAL 30.45
C0635 CARLSON TRACTOR °y EQU* 54839 03/25/97 197129 7129 03/07/97 226.82
54839 03/25/97 196979 02/28/97 272.81
54839 03/25/97 196900 02/26/97 58.49
VENDOR TOTAL 558. 12
C5200 COFFEE-INN OF M I NNESO* 54 840 03/25/97 35822 03/20/97 579.80
VENDOR TOTAL 579.80
25400 LEE COLLINS LIMITED 54841 03/25/97 00010082 02/17/97 455.44
VENDOR TOTAL 455.44
26000 COPY SALES, INC. 54842 03/25/97 125113A 03/11/97 293.43
54842 0_:/25/97 12425A 1 03/05/97 66.90
54842 03/25/97 12233A 02/21/97 43.25-
54842 03/25/97 052981 1 03/06/97 9.23
VENDOR TOTAL 326.31
26025 COTTENS INC 54843 03/25/97 189579 11/23/96 153.47
VENDOR TOTAL 153.47
lip CRYSTEEL DIST. , INC 54844 03/25/97 130093 03/05/97 x,27.51
VENDOR TOTAL 827.51
80065 D.J. 'S MUNICIPAL SUPP* 54845 03/25/97 6236 03/14/97 32. 18
VENDOR TOTAL 82. 18
80700 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMEN* 54846 03/25/97 81619 03/04/97 175.21
54846 03/25/97 81597 .03/0:3/97 624.42
VENDOR TOTAL 799.63
X4875 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY C* 54847 03/25/97 1-990964 03/06/97 111 .3:1
VENDOR TOTAL 111 .31
E5959 ENERGY EDUCATION SOLU* 54848 03/25/97 03/25/97 40.00
VENDOR TOTAL 40.00
=9020 ERICKSON'S NEWMARKET 54849 03/25/97 03/03/97 29.8:3
VENDOR TOTAL �9.8:3
:9060 ETONIC-TRETORN 54850 03/25/97 D:3434372 02/11/97 88.94
VENDOR TOTAL R8.94
:9075 EVERGREEN LAND SERVIC* 54:851 c:33/25/97 6847 03/03/97 592.86
VENDOR TOTAL 592.86
86
11110 FOUR BY FOUR SERVICE 54852 03/25/97 107661 0:3/07/97 28.00
54852 03/25/97 107640 02/28/97 30.00
PAGE 4 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK: REGISTER
AF'-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW
VENDOR CHECK: CHECK INVOICE INVOICE
11110 VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT
VENDOR TOTAL 58.00
F6895 FRIENDLY CHEVROLET GE* 54853 03/25/97 100126 03/06/97 138. 1B
54853 03/25/97 100189 03/06/97 47.82
c 03/25/97 99890 105.65
54853 03/25/97 100261 03/07/97 .53
VENDOR TOTAL 312. 18
00150 G T E DIRECTORIES COR* 54854 03/' 5/97 03/06/97 27. 14
VENDOR TOTAL 27. 14
G5880 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL* 54855 03/25/97 7020444 02/28/97 38.50
VENDOR TOTAL 38.50
05940 GOVERNMENT TRAINING S* 54856 03/25/97 03/25/97 :_;40.00
VENDOR TOTAL 340.00
G4755 W W GRAINGER INC 54857 03/25/97 497-985889-3 03/06/97 13.42
54857 0=/2c/ 497-986731-6 U3/11/r 7 29.65
VENDOR TOTAL 43.07
H0590 HARMON GLASS COMPANY 54858 03/25/97 210073697 03/06/1767.49
1111kVENDOR TOTAL 347.49
-IP HUBCAP WAREHOUSE INC 54859 03/25/97 21854 02/26/97 15.98
VENDOR TOTAL 15.98
H6000 HUGHES & COSTELLO 54860 03/25/97 OS/03/97 3000.00
VENDOR TOTAL 3000.00
H6525 HUMAN KINETICS PURL I S* 54841 OS/25/97 1343949 949 03/07/97 149. 32
VENDOR TOTAL 149.32
H7000 HYDRAULIC SPECIALTY C* 54862 03/25/97 18079 03/04/97 24.28
54862 03/25/97 18086 03/05/97 19.57
VENDOR TOTAL 43.85
I5656 INVENTRON 54863 03/25/97 11921 02/20/97 50.00
VENDOR TOTAL 50.00
J1000 JARGON, RICHARD B 54864 OB/25/97 03/25/97 79.00
VENDOR TOTAL 79.00
1, 1000 KENNEDY & GRAVEN 54865 03/25/97 13584 01/09/97 123.50
VENDOR TOTAL 123.50
L1870 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA C* 54844 0:3/25/97 03/25/97 121 .28
VENDOR TOTAL 121 .28
11111 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES I* 54867 03/25/97 64279/64280 t:2/26/97 23109.00
PAGE 5 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER
AP-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW
VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE
SVENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT
VENDOR TOTAL 23109.00
L3545 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSP* 54869 03/25/97 02/28/97 160.71
VENDOR TOTAL 160.71
L6944 LUEDTKE, JANE 54870 03/25/97 03/05/97 37.50
VENDOR TOTAL 37.50
M0300 M R P A 54871 03/25/97 00395 03/11/97 n .00
VENDOR TOTAL 25.00
M0677 MARK' S WELDING & FABR* 54872 O_;/ 5/97 03/04/97 22.00
VENDOR TOTAL 22.00
M2055 MEDTOX LABORATORIES 5487 03/25/97 0 971 156 02/28/97 _;0.O0
VENDOR TOTAL 20.00
M075 MENARDS 54874 03/ 5/97 23305 03/06/97 30.00
54:374 03/25/97 23554 03/17/97 25. 17
54874 03/25/97 02/12/97 29.79
VENDOR TOTAL 94.96
-5 MERMAID BOWLING LANES 54875 03/25/97 5/97 03/17/97 1447.50
VENDOR TOTAL 1447.50
~13411 MICRON ELECTRONICS; I* 54876 03/25/97 986710 02/19/97 2348.25
54876 03/25/97 988875 02/20/97 1613.53
VENDOR TOTAL 3961 .7R
M3422 MIDWAY FORD COMPANY 54877 03/25/97 29264 0 /27/97 71 .07
VENDOR TOTAL 71 .07
M3444 MIDWEST COCA-COLA BOT* 5487:3 03/25/97 00179 96 03/01/97 14.91
VENDOR TOTAL 14.91
13490 MINAR FORD 54879 03/25/97 630931 03/06/97 31 .75
VENDOR TOTAL 31 .75
13700 MINNEGASCO 54830 03/25/97 03/25/97 398.46
VENDOR TOTAL 398.46
13707 MINNESOTA CHAPTER NAH* 54881 0:/25/97 03/25/97 240.00
VENDOR TOTAL 240.00
13990 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT * 54882 03/25/97 03/25/97 4009.00
VENDOR TOTAL 4009.00
1tf0 MITA FINANCIAL SERV I C* 548:33 03/25/97 19097024 03/25/97 102.99
41VENDOR TOTAL 102.99
PAGE 6 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER
AP-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW
VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE
VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT
M �00 STATE CHEMICAL �MFG CO 54884 O3/25/97 03050801 03/21/97 136. 13
VENDOR TOTAL 136. 13
M7900 MULTICARE ASSOCIATES 54885 03/25/97 03/25/97 77.00
VENDOR TOTAL 77.00
M8100 MUNICILITE 54886 03/25/97 8520 03/04/97 82.01
VENDOR TOTAL 82.01
M8119 MUSIC THEATRE INTERNA* 54887 03/25/97 03/25/97 300.00
VENDOR TOTAL 300.00
N0050 N E P CORPORATION 54888 03/25/97 023147 02/25/97 121 .35
54888 03/25/97 023146 02/25/97 238.67
54888 03/25/97 023148 02/25/97 201 .57
VENDOR TOTAL 561 .59
N0700 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDAT* 54890 03/25/97 01506 02/12/97 44.25
VENDOR TOTAL 44.25
N2900 NIKE INC 54891 03/25/97 22392634 11/15/96 20.32
VENDOR TOTAL 20.32
NORTH METRO MAYORS AS* 54892 03/25/97 03/25/97 8.00
11/, VENDOR TOTAL 8.00
N3714 NORTHERN ASPHALT CONS* 54893 03/25/97 18167 03/07/97 444. 11
54893 03/25/97 18152 02/28/97 444. 11
54893 03/25/97 18173 03/12/97 370.09
VENDOR TOTAL 1258.31
N3800 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS I* 54894 03/25/97 62945FI 03/10/97 67.21
VENDOR TOTAL 67.21
N4200 NORTHERN STATES POWER* 54895 03/25/97 03/25/97 ` 7918.31
VENDOR TOTAL 7918.31
V4201 NORTHERN STATES POWER 54897 03/25/97C25248 02/27/97 1360.40
VENDOR TOTAL 1360.40
7,2100 PERFECT "10" CAR WASH 54898 03/25/97 02/28/97 21 .32
VENDOR TOTAL 21 .32
30865 RAMSEY COUNTY 54899 03/25/97 N02916 40500 02/12/97 19.50
54899 03/25/97 B04014 47101 02/28/97 1122.37
54899 03/25/97 B04008 47101 02/25/97 46.24
. VENDOR TOTAL 1188. 11
41/0JOHN E REID AND ASSOC* 54900 03/25/97 03/25/97 495.00
VENDOR TOTAL 495.00
PAGE 7 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK'.: REGISTER
AF'-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW
VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE
0 VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT
S0555 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 54901 03/25/97 740314 03/10/97 18.3.45
VENDOR TOTAL 153.45
51001 SAM'S CLUB 54902 03/25/97 03/25/97 10.00
VENDOR TOTAL 10.00
S2060 SERCO LABS 54903 03/25/97 51365 03/04/97 77.00
VENDOR TOTAL 77.00
53191 SHELDON. PAMELA 54904 03/25/97 03/25/97 69=; 25
VENDOR TOTAL 495.. 5
83225 SHORT ELLIOTT & HENDR* 54905 03/25/97 39317 02/28/97 567.49
54905 03/25/97 38940 02/25/97 1200.00
0
54905 03/25/97 39222 02/28/97 595. 17
VENDOR TOTAL 23A.2.AA
S3550 SIERRA DIGITAL 54906 03/25/97 53958 02/28/97 495.00
VENDOR TOTAL 495.00
85605 SNYDER'S DRUG STORES,* 54907 03/25/97 5044-000039 03/12/97 46.41
1111 54907 03/25/97 5044-000057 03/11/97 6.86
VENDOR TOTAL 53.27
36000 SPALDING 54908 03/25/97 50075232 02/27/97 197. 10
VENDOR TOTAL 197. 10
36250 SPRING LAKE PARR. FIRE* 54909 03/25/97 03/25/97 37977.00
VENDOR TOTAL 37977.00
36336 SRE SECURITY ALARM 54910 03/25/97 701029 11/01/96 191 .70
54910 0:3/25/97 701028 11/01/96 125.00
VENDOR TOTAL 316.70
36350 SRF CONSULTING GROUP,* 54911 03/25/97 2600-1 02/28/97 4471 .81
VENDOR TOTAL 4471 .81
37400 STREICHER 'S PROF. POL* 54912 03/25/97 IN.79160. 1 03/05/97 22.37
54912 03/' 5/97 I N.7 8 8 49. 1 03/03/97 0. 5
54912 03/25/97 I N.79209. 1 03/05/97 22.37-
VENDOR TOTAL :=.0.s:5
38000 SUBURBAN PROPANE 54913 03/25/97 001/161953 02/18/97 54.95
VENDOR TOTAL 54.95
38626 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS MFG* 54914 03/25/97 03/18/97 12. 35
• 54914 03/25/97 221646 00 03/18/97 2 .4=
VENDOR TOTAL •3 78
PAGE 8 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER
AP-C10-01 / MOUNDS VIEW
VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE
Il.._kVENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT
8 TOLL GAS & WELDING SU* 54915 03/25/97 107551 03/05/97 34.56
54915 03/25/97 551102 02/28/97 4.76
54915 03/25/97 547180 12/31/96 5.27
VENDOR TOTAL 44.59
U0400 U S WEST 54916 03/25/97 03/25/97 2048.88
54916 03/25/97 03/04/97 55.40
VENDOR TOTAL 2104.28
U0401 U S WEST COMMUNICATIO* 54918 03/25/97 03/25y97 43.31
54918 03/25y97 03/25/97 21 . 12
VENDOR TOTAL 64.43
U6000 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE* 54919 03/25/97 740076706 03/12/97 251 .03
54919 03/25/97 740075780 03/05/97 197.60
VENDOR TOTAL 448.63
U9099 MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY* 54921 03/25/97 02/07/97 2860.00
VENDOR TOTAL 2860.00
V6600 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY * 54922 03/25/97 295412 03/03/97 62.09
VENDOR TOTAL 62.09
• ZEP MANUFACTURING COM* 54923 03/25/97 57636109 02/27/97 805.26
VENDOR TOTAL 805.26
GRAND TOTAL 117219.45
o
F'AGE 1 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PRE-PAID CHECK REGIS
AP-C10-02 MOUNDS VIEW
VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE
0..:06
VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT
WORLD 'S GREATEST DEAL* 51142 t�3/06/97 t r/c_�6/97278.4:3
VENDOR TOTAL 272.63
U9000 MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY* 51143 0:3/06/97 03/06/97 60.00
VENDOR TOTAL 60.00
U0300 U S POSTMASTER 51144 03/06/97 03/06/97 72.23
VENDOR TOTAL 72.23
73207 BROCK WHITE/SPEC MATE* 51145 03/07/97 03/07/97 50.00
' VENDOR TOTAL 50.00
15505 INPUT PLUS 51146 03/07/97 03/07/97 :354.03
VENDOR TOTAL 054.03
U2750 ULRICH, MICHAEL 51147 03/07/97 03/07/97 214.87
VENDOR TOTAL 214.87
P7900 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREM* 51148 03/12/97 03/12/97 5334.60
51148 03/12/97 03/12/97 ~124.26
VENDOR TOTAL 5458.86
111
)0 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE 51149 0 ./12/97 03/12/97
730.05
VENDOR TOTAL 730.05
H0888 HEALTHPARTNERS 51150 03/12/97 03/12/97 611 .64
VENDOR TOTAL 611 .64
10082 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST* 51151 03/12/97 03/12/97 116.54
VENDOR TOTAL 116.54
W1919 WESTERN BANK 51152 03/12/97 03/12/97 30:6.65
51152 03/12/97 03/12/97 8:35. 10
51152 03/12/97 03/12/97 59201 .76
51152 03/12/97 03/12/97 21291 .04
VENDOR TOTAL 84364.55
F3595 FINANCE DEPARTMENT - * 51153 03/12/97 03/12/97/97 45.00
VENDOR TOTAL 45.00
M3990 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT * 51154 03/12/97 03/12/97 450.00
VENDOR TOTAL 450.00
M4984 MINNESOTA SECRETARY 0* 51155 0:3/13/97 0:3/13/97 . 128.00
VENDOR TOTAL 128.00
A1000 AFTON ALPS SKI AREA 51156 03/13/97 03/1:3/97 121 .00
51157 0:3/13/97 03/ice:/97 i/_-,5.t_�ti
41/1
VENDOR TOTAL ,=4.00
PAGE 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PRE-PAID CHECK REGIS
AP-C10-02 MOUNDS VIEW
V DOR CHECK: CHECK INVOICE INVOICE
VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT
732O8 MILLER, GARY 51158 03/14/97 03/14/Q7 500.00
VENDOR TOTAL 500.00
57120 MINN HOUSING FINANCE * 51159 03/17/97 03/17/97 2251 .2Q
VENDOR TOTAL 2251 .2Q
00303 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 51160 03/17/Q7 03/17/Q7 5000.00
VENDOR TOTAL 5000.00
N4200 NORTHERN STATES POWER* 51161 03/17/97 03/17/97 6122.89
VENDOR TOTAL 6122.89
53215 SHOREVIEW, CITY OF 51162 03/18/97 03/13/'=7 60.00
VENDOR TOTAL 60.00
80455 BALLOMATIC, INC 51163 03/19/97 03/19/'7 5107.38
VENDOR TOTAL 5107. 38
I5505 INPUT PLUS 51164 03/19/97 03/19/97 354.0
VENDOR TOTAL 354.03
M4200 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REV* 51165 03/20/97 03/19/97 1040.00
VENDOR TOTAL 1040.00
b 90 MUNICI-PALS 51166 03/19/97 03/19/97 10.00
VENDOR TOTAL 10.00
GRAND TOTAL 113665.99
Item No.2 E'
Staff Report No. 97--ZDO3 Cr
Meeting Date: March 24, 1997
Type of Business: CB
WK.• Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:ConsentAgenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Land Acquisition through Eminent Domain
Date of Report: March 19, 1997
There is a small parcel of land within the realignment of Old Highway 8 that the City must
acquire. It appears to be vacated right of way possibly from a previous project. Ramsey County,
and Evergreen Land Services have exhausted all avenues to establish the legal owner, therefore
the property must be acquired through eminent domain.
The following resolution is necessary for the City Attorney to proceed with the acquisition. Staff
recommends Council approve Resolution No. 5102. You must sign the accompanying witness
statement, and forward certified copies back to me.
Thank you.
•
K/)
Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt Resolution No. 5102, Resolution Authorizing the
Acquisition of Property by Proceedings in Eminent Domain.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 5102
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
1110
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY PROCEEDINGS
IN EMINENT DOMAIN
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View (the "City" )
wishes to reconstruct Old Highway 8 in the City to provide for
the safe and efficient movement of vehicles through the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the plans
and specification for reconstruction of Old Highway 8; and
WHEREAS, in order to complete construction of the
Old Highway 8 improvements in accordance with those plan , It 1..J=
necessary for the City to acquire the real estate described in
Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Subject Property" ) ; and
WHEREAS, the City has been unable to determine the
whereabouts of the owner of the Subject Property and therefore
has failed to agree upon terms of purchase with the owner; and
WHEREAS, the City Council needs to proceed with
the reconstruction of Olds Highway 8 in accordance with said
plans and specifications before the date when an award of
commissioners may be received in eminent domain would be for a
public purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City
Council of the City of Mounds View Minnesota, hereby authorizes
the City' s staff and city attorney, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered,
to take all necessary actions to acquire the Subject Property
through eminent domain proceedings and through use of the "quick
take" procedures, and described in Minn, Stats . 117 . 042 .
Adopted this 27th day of January, 1997 .
ATTEST:
Duane McCarty, Mayor
(SEAL)
Chuck Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator
4111
EXHIBIT A
S
Legal Description of Subiect Property
The part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
of Section 17, Township 30 , Range 23 , lying south and
southeast of Ramsey County Road H and North and Northwest of
the "Rice Creek Channel Change" which is described in
Warranty Deed filed December 3 , 1965, according to the
United States Government Survey, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
s
411
•
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss .
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified Clerk-
Administrator of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, hereby
certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing
with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a
full, true and complete copy thereof, insofar as the same relates
to :
RESOLUTION NO. 5102
Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition of Property by Proceedings
in Eminent Domain .
WITNESS MY HAND, officially as such Clerk-Adm .nis gator an.a
the corporate seal of the City of Mounds View the 24th day of
March, 1997 .
Chuck Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator 4111
•
u Item No. /0 7:6
Staff Report No. 97—ad$ C
Meeting Date: March 24, 1997
• Type of Business: PH
WK:Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an
Oversized Garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive,Planning Case No. 473-97
Date of Report: March 21, 1997
Background:
The applicant, Tammy Bellamy of 2185 Pinewood Drive, has requested a conditional use permit
to construct a 1,260 square-foot oversized garage on her property, replacing the existing 290
square-foot garage. The principal structure is a 660 square-foot one-and-a-half story home. The
site is a corner lot fronting Pinewood and County Road I as well as Quincy Street. There is a
privacy fence along the property line fronting Quincy Street. The applicant has expressed a need
to build the oversized garage in which to store a long car-hauler and race car instead of having the
car hauler parked in the driveway. The Plannning Commission at their March 5th meeting
S recommended approval of the CUP, but did weigh heavily the size of the garage and its impact
upon the neighborhood. The Commission asked the applicant if this were the minimum size
garage necessary to meet her needs, to which the applicant responded that it was.
The Planning Commission discussed two letters staff had received from neighbors of the applicant
opposing the garage. No one spoke in opposition of the garage at either Planning Commission
meeting. Since the March 5th meeting, staff has received additional phone calls and visits from
neighbors expressing opposition to the proposal.
Discussion:
Dimmensional Requirements:
The garage as it is proposed, does meet all of the setback and dimensional requirements as set
forth in the Municipal Code relating to accessory buildings and conditional uses within R-1, Single
Family Residential zone. These requirements, which the Council may increase as a condition of
approval, are as follows:
Required Provided Met ?
Garage Setbacks (Front) 70 feet 80 feet Yes
(Side) 5 feet 11 feet Yes
(Rear) 5 feet 49 feet Yes
Percent of Rear Yard <25% 21 % Yes
• Garage Width 5 35 feet 8 feet Yes
Area of all Accessory Buildings 5 1,264 sq. ft. 1,260 sq. ft. Yes
City of Mounds View Staff Report
Planning Case No. 473-97, Oversized Garage CUP
March 21, 1997
Page 2
a
Applicable Regulations
Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code states that no garage shall exceed 864 square feet except by
conditional use permit. With a CUP, the maximum area for a garage is 1,264 square feet. The
garage proposed by the applicant, at 1,260 square feet, is 4 square feet shy of the maximum size
allowed by the Code.
Section 1125.01 gives a list of criteria that must be satisfied in order for conditional use permits to
be approved. This development appears to satisfy the criteria with the possible exception of
numbers two and three as follows:
(2) "The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by a distance or screening from
adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value..."
(3) "The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect
upon the adjacent residential properties."
The issue of compatibility is strong between these criteria. The question that needs to be addressed
is whether or not this garage would be keeping with the character of the neighborhood, or in other
words, would it be a"good fit." A related factor worth considering is how the proposed garage
would compare to the existing principal structure on the site.
Staff Analysis:
Most of the homes in this neighborhood are smaller, one-and-a-half story expansions with small
detached garages. While large, multi-stall garages may be common among newer or larger homes,
a garage of this proportion would be inconsistent with the garages present in this area. The City
Code does not have any provision that restricts or limits the size of a garage to a certain percentage
of the principal structure. Staff considers that this garage would be incompatible with the
surrounding area and incompatible with the house.
In the staff report that went to the Planning Commission for its March 5th meeting, Staff was
favorable toward recommending approval of this project because the garage met all of the
dimensional requirements and the thought that the bulk of the garage would be adequately shielded
from view. In addition, Staff thought that by having the car hauler and race car stored inside the
garage as opposed to outside, it would decrease if not eliminate the clutter present on the site.
Since that meeting, however, Staff has received more phone calls and met with persons stopping in
at City Hall who voiced objections to the proposal.
Staff decided to measure the car hauler to determine whether a smaller garage could be built that
would still be of a size sufficient to store the car hauler. Its length is approximately 28 feet without •
a car, probably 32 feet with a car. Adjusting upwards, a garage 36 feet long would appear to be
- City of Mounds View Staff Report
Planning Case No. 473-97, Oversized Garage CUP
March 21, 1997
Page 3
more than adequate for storage of the car hauler. This would be 12 feet less than what has been
•
proposed by the applicant and would reduce the square footage of the garage by 258 square feet
(from 1,260 to 1,008 square feet). As a point of reference, if the width of the proposed garage was
reduced by only four feet, the size of the garage would be 864 square feet, the maximum garage
size allowed without a conditional use permit.
Recommendation:
The Council has three possible courses of action for this request:
Option#1: Approval as requested by the applicant
Option#2: Approval with a reduction in size for the garage
Option#3: Denial based on an inability to met the criteria noted above relative to compatibility
with the neighborhood, and effect on adjacent properties.
If the Council chooses to approve the conditional use permit, Staff would urge that as a condition
of approval, the dimensions of the garage be reduced to 28 x 36 (1,008 square feet). If the Council
considers a 1,008 square feet garage to still be excessive given the area in which it is to be located,
0 the CUP should be denied. Staff believes that denial would not prohibit the applicant from erecting
a garage suitable for storage of the car hauler as it has been shown that the car hauler would fit in a
864 square foot garage. Staff has prepared three versions of Resolution No. 5098.
(1 etit/11 C----a--e'L'erQL----
James Ericson, Planning Associate
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\473-97\473-97CC.RPT
•
r---CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING APPLICATION
APPLICANT: 1 a_v-r\rn�` a_.\\ei m Phone -3q�6
Imo. i J r
ADDRESS: (PISS ! ► ne woc� 'br. f-)b�f�cS V )l•,u, 1(Lfn- D 1-D 0
Street Address, City, State, and Zp Code
Interest in Property (check appropriate box):
X Owner of Property
❑ Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager
❑ Agreement to Purchase •
❑ Other (explain)
Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City ec~.,on of tia request.
PROPERTY INVOLVED:
Address/General Location o"1.1 ST f i ne,,,r,t 'jr.
Legal Description or Property Identification Number
Legal Owner: Name/Address 'Ta_,r,-\a,„rck. y t ee,l,0_rn y
Present Use (check appropriate box):
❑ Undeveloped/Vacant
Single Family Dwelling
❑ . Duplex/Two Family Dwelling . . .. . - - -- . ---. r. -,
❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units )
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment
❑ Industrial Establishment
❑ Other (explain)
Property Cassincation: ❑ Abstract 0 Torrens
REC U ES T: To lea..,-..30,a k o. itiia t {.U bet . , i .ad- kcs ..e..�-C C,�.�
1. �e c` e1 oto„:„.„5- ,,,,,,_6_ `D -,...- ---A, 4-(,. Jr_ _'+� `0Mdi.2-,
*Please note: Applicant may be responsible for acciticnal fees associated with the review of this request.
I HERESY DECLARE THAT THE AECVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE. --1 — `0-in`�.
Signatu it
Rezoning $200/acre.minimum$200.maximum 51,000 Psrk Fund Dedication Fee
Variance R-1 to R-2-S75.aii others=Oa Date Paid
Conaiiianai Use Permit R-1 to R-2-S75.ad others$20 Receipt Number
Code Appeal S75 y.
Deveico.iSite Pan Review 5100/acre.minimum 100.maximum $500 Total Fees Paid +t'75" °
Minor Sucaivision 5150 Date Paid I/I t..4/ it i
Maroc Suoaivision S250 pius$250 deposit Receipt Number 7 LL 1 1,:i I
Cama. Pan Amendment $200
weuana Alteration Permit $50 plus deocsa determines by Ste Additicnai Fee Rid •
Wedand Surfer Permrt S10 Cate Paid
Panning Sign S50 neceiot Number
PUD $50
PUD Amendment $150 Care of final ac-on
APPROVED E DENIED 77 T:EL-7
Date i1 '1 - cil Panning Gass No. .Admin.Account No.
mo �'
0, Pe 41,.- .T4 N N 2233( 5691
�-10� 0'
T.17 .177 5681 R-5�,, 1o � N i:j111?1,
to 0 "it NONN N CN N N :�Iil/: .
il
0 C., N®N N N N N N N . 5671,1v
• s COLONIAL VILLAGE
�`c' �- '-3cri MOBILE HOME PARK
co
r
7.1)N N N N N N N N N� N N N O O O co co ^ ^ 0
P N N rti N I N ` N N I N N
is
HILLVIEW R
i M 0) CO N (0 O 0 r t-) N N ,_ �D 0 N
I
CO N (0 0�0 N 'O O a• co 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M) N r- — O OS OS O N N
N N N 04 N N N N N N N N N N OA000 N N N N N N O N N O O
g CZ OS
P t f 3 o% -anal ru., , '518 CN N N N N N N N OS M u') 5590�K - of r7 n CA r n t` rNaS I-) M N r O 0) of VI N N
NN N N Pr00000
OAKWyOOO N N N N N N N N N N N
:JV Si CO N ® 0 o3 o Cn to T •• • r. OR
N N N `r M N •
56C0 N N N N N N N N N N N CO 03 CO to M M N m 0 Q of C0O7 O N t\.
N
0) C) N n 4 aS 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
..:O Z, CNV CN N N (NI
J N N .r n r
:a N N N N N N Qf
'J. N N N N CI '' L10 N aS M N OS t-) N. O P) N to N
T f�� N N N!I CO N. t0 if7 d• Y') C) N O OS OS 1� N
35 0 •• 000 0 I I- C2p 0 0 /�R '"SCE N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O 0 O 0
N N N N Q ca 0
N ' OR
..3'04{ N N N N N N N N N N/,._N • O Q' • CO N CO CO N 10 00 0N N CO 0 v to, t7 N 0 CI
3538 N) N N N N'N I N'N N N N V N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N
X532 j Pi NEW000 III N N��
fN/
`^ Z
as CC N C7 0 tN CS N. OS M) N as r) N r 1A N. ---
V C co CO co n /cola CD O N S• 0nr7 N r r Oa7 CJS CO NN N N tf1 '•r M M N N N 0 0 0 0 0
NN NN N N N ai` N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N N (Ni /-..
N' N/N / 11111
I
N
' I i
7 O s
O ' N •art m 5511 5512 5511
v N.
`v5505
0 5497 5503 5504 5499 PINEWOOD
N N I N N^ •. 5472 N 4.1
. 549.35494 5493 SCHOOL
vK t S 5485 5486 1 5485 5500
5460 5479 R—J ;fl-;47;•-
I
in
5474 5473 54 8 1 - ' Lu
—� 5466 5487 5464 I I I 5467
5463 6E
5462 546.3 54.59
5445 54x4 5455 5486 �C� Si 5453 . (~
5 6 5 a 5447 u) Nom':_ W
447 C 543 G��s •
5440 544.1 < 4.; Trs 54.:9 N to ^ u7 ,r °in ,,) �? H
5434 5-0.33 S 54 33 N N N I N 1 N 1 CM 1- u) �`
T
5426 5425 S2, 17 I 5425 BF; ! LN = •:
5420 5421 542' 1 5419 N ( NININ N /2 C:11 �
5414 5415 5414 N I —41'1141w 541.3 \
5401 V � ,h1 ,nIN .. Q( 0 NiCjT � Ipf ^ I^
5405 405 406 N I N 1 N 1 N N I N 5405 N N I Sri <
N N N N N 5364. Q
.•
Zoning Map Case No. 473-97
2185 Pinewood Drive J\T
i)Applicant: Tammy Bellamy
•
• z
z
4,,,,49
_ , ,
, r) R„, e,
`s
F 17,4/4 EXisic - 114 Ik,C\
4111) GARS o
216 �
S,. F*. NoUSE t
I (.(s 0 sq. -r-t. (P% Ill .
I if
I x 1 Ali
. 001
IfI Ill\
1 i I
39
. / _ _
PM/ 70. 4 5
ehloon
bik' ivE
Site Plan (existing)
Planning Case No. 473-97 2185 Pinewood Drive "
Applicant: Tammy Bellamy �+
8 2 -
rtil '.,;::
c
! 28.0
lin ' ..,,,nr) _ n_ mi.-1,v _t
n
6 AR, ill
ijoi
141) �Z60
Vi
54• Ff, to
HousE
GGOS
l, ici, (PI .r
i
111%i :
t
' 1 /
3st
/a • . _
P/Aik-tv •
oob A 70. 45
•
RIV
i
Site Plan (proposed)
Planning Case No. 473-97 2185 Pinewood Drive AT
Applicant: Tammy Bellamy
'/
t'.
'.'... 0
! Iti
• :2 . ..............
t�-^:
•
•
C•k 11(. .55 -2
< i ,./._...3.7 „,,./.57 ,
q 7 '7 8
�� / fq - -Y _ /0 , q2
he / s
/ rs 3 X817, 53
Design Works (R), Knox Li-=nber, , # 212, Phone # 483-5hh 11
Tue Feb 11 11:33:45 1.997D
The materials in this garage will cost $3987.53
This Price does not include any Special Order Items.
litID: CQ4635
ing: 3-Dimensional View
•
.. ...,
.
gc
pp
i 1
{ lillair.4�•. .ems//.'
Rr•%f/ FJ.
Ei{ .J t h_ _
F
Ask For A Construction Detail Sheet Before You Begin Your Project
•
3- '1-9 7
__716- .073t,0•4 ; •
.gar _ .ZZALE__- __d-l-4e!--#. 41/1
� „..
je-i-,-(:f•-e. 1_4 I Lh t __1411Agie Ce1gd
_i-LeiZie 47141
-- - - - rim _
.
I lig
/o
Ct1 • ezaSea
1t1 017 E 0
fl MAR 0 4 1997
!By 7 ,U t -'
March 3 , 1997
4111 Dear Mr . Ericson :
We would like to take this opportunity to express our
concern regarding the proposal .to build an oversized garage
at 2185 Pinewood Drive. We live next door at 2195 , and are
suspicious of the Bellamy ' s intentions . Their present garage
is full of car motors that were hauled in on a flatbed truck.
We suspect that they intend to run a car repair business out of
their.*home . Why else would they require a building of such size?
The proposed building is larger than the house itself and would
look out of place relative to its surroundings .
The Bellamy ' s claim they will only be using the building
for storage, however, we fear this is a cover-up for what they
really intend to do. If suspicions prove true, increased noise
and traffic will be brought to a residential area. In short,
we do not want to put up with this problem.
We fear our property value will certainly decrease as a
result of this situation. We have lived in Mounds View for 24
years and feel we should not have to look at or live next door
to such a mess .
We would like to make it clear that we have no objection to
4111 the Bellamy ' s building a normal size garage . How many oversized
garages do you see within the city limits that are 28 x 45? We
feel strongly regarding this matter, and hope the planning commission
will consider our concerns before ruling.
Respectfully Yours ,
Harry Meinert
Mary Meinert
1—Of � L� Qds
BAR Uj ; 1991
13y
RESOLUTION 5098 (Option #1) •
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY •
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN
OVERSIZED GARAGE FOR TAMMY BELLAMY, 2185 PINEWOOD DRIVE;
PLANNING CASE NO. 473-97
WHEREAS, Tammy Bellamy has applied for a conditional use permit to allow an 1,260
square-foot oversized garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive, property legally described as:
LOT 32, BLOCK 8, PINEWOOD TERRACE NO. 3
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to
1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this
proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plans
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings that the dimensional requirements in 41111
the Zoning Code have been met:
Required Provided Met ?
Garage Setbacks (Front) 70 feet 80 feet Yes
(Side) 5 feet 11 feet Yes
(Rear) 5 feet 49 feet Yes
Percent of Rear Yard <25% 21% Yes
Garage Width s 35 feet 8 feet Yes
Area of all Accessory Buildings: 5 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,260 Sq. ft. Yes
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings that possible adverse effects
have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.:
1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas
so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2185 Pinewood
Drive, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Planning Commission Resolution 495-97
110
March 5, 1997
Page 2
1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas
so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2185 Pinewood
Drive, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4. The Character of the Surrounding Area
The lots in this area are either the same size as the subject lot or are smaller. The homes in
this area are of a similar style and construction, with detached or attached garages. Since
2185 Pinewood is a corner lot and also fronts County Road I, it has more visibility than the
other homes in this area. Although the proposed garage is larger than is typical for the
area, the placement of the garage hides the bulk of it from view from adjacent streets.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
• Removing the existing, one car garage and replacing it with a new, larger garage would be
a benefit to the area in the sense that it is an upgrade to an existing building, and an
improvement to the property.
5. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use.
The applicant has stated that this garage is needed to store vehicles used for racing, a hobby
the residents partake in. Previously, the applicant was asked by the City to remove a large
car carrier from their rear yard. Currently, the car carrier is in the front driveway because
the existing garage is too small. A new, larger garage would enable the applicant to keep
the car carrier and race cars inside, as well as other yard appliances. Keeping these items
within the garage as opposed to outside will reduce the appearance of clutter on the
property.
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the criteria for
approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
• provided.
•
Planning Commission Resolution 495-97
March 5, 1997
Page 3410
The construction of an oversized garage to replace an existing garage will not create a
greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it
create an appreciable increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the
larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The placement of the garage so that the bulk of the structure is hidden from street view will
provide adequate screening, and will preserve the residential character of the neighborhood.
The adjacent neighbors have no objection to the proposal.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
1111
Garages are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for storage of vehicles and other
equipment. Having this garage will allow for the property to be kept in better order and for
storage of larger-than-typical equipment. Improving neighborhoods by enclosing stored
items is beneficial to the community and consistent with community goals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations:
1. The conditional use permit be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City
Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of
Mounds View.
2. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building
appearance with the dwelling unit.
3. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the
district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Notwithstanding allowances in
the Zoning Code, the oversized garage shall not be used for a repair business
whether or not such use would qualify as a home occupation. Should the
use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall
become null and void.
Planning Commission Resolution 495-97
ID March 5, 1997
Page 4
4. The garage shall be situated parallel to the home such that it maintains a consistent
distance from the side of the home closest to the garage and not be set at an angle.
5. No other accessory buildings shall be allowed on this lot.
Adopted this 5th day of March, 1997.
Duane McCarty,Mayor
ATTEST:
Chuck Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
•
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\473-97\473-97CC.RS1
•
RESOLUTION 5098 (Option #2)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
410
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN 1,008
SQUARE FOOT, OVERSIZED GARAGE FOR TAMMY BELLAMY,
2185 PINEWOOD DRIVE;
PLANNING CASE NO. 473-97
WHEREAS, Tammy Bellamy has applied for a conditional use permit to allow an 1,260
square-foot oversized garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive, property legally described as:
LOT 32, BLOCK 8, PINEWOOD TERRACE NO. 3
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to
1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this
proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plans •
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings that the dimensional requirements in
the Zoning Code have been met:
Required Provided Met ?
Garage Setbacks (Front) 70 feet 80 feet Yes
(Side) 5 feet 11 feet Yes
(Rear) 5 feet 49 feet Yes
Percent of Rear Yard <25% 21% Yes
Garage Width s 35 feet 8 feet Yes
Area of all Accessory Buildings: s 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,260 Sq. ft. Yes
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings that possible adverse effects
have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.:
1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas
so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2185 Pinewood
•
Drive, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
in terms of land use..
Resolution No. 5098 (Option#2)
Planning Case No. 473-97, Oversized Garage CUP
March 24, 1997
• Page 2
2. The Geographical Area Involved.
4. The Character of the Surrounding Area
The lots in this area are either the same size as the subject lot or are smaller. The homes in
this area are of a similar style and construction, with detached or attached garages. Since
2185 Pinewood is a corner lot and also fronts County Road I, it has more visibility than the
other homes in this area. The proposed garage is larger than is typical for this area. In
relation to the principal residence, the garage would be almost twice as large. A smaller
garage would be a better fit in this area than would the garage as proposed by the applicant.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed
Removing the existing, one car garage and replacing it with a new, larger garage would
create a trade-off. There would be a benefit to the area in the sense that it is an upgrade to
an existing building, and an improvement to the property. The negative aspect relates back
to the size--neighbors in the area have stated that the size of the proposed garage is just too
much
111 S. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use.
The applicant has stated that this garage is needed to store vehicles used for racing, a hobby
the residents partake in. Previously, the applicant was asked by the City to remove a large
car carrier from their rear yard. Currently, the car carrier is in the front driveway because
the existing garage is too small. A new, larger garage would enable the applicant to keep
the car carrier and race cars inside, as well as other yard appliances. Measurements taken
by staff, however, reveal that a 28 x 36 foot garage would also provide adequate space
needs.
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the criteria for
approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
The construction of an oversized garage to replace an existing garage would not create a
greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it
create an appreciable increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the
• larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system.
Resolution No. 5098 (Option#2)
Planning Case No. 473-97, Oversized Garage CUP
March 24, 1997
Page 3
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The proposed garage is expected to stand out in contrast to the surrounding homes and
garages. The City has received complaints from neighboring property owners objecting to
this project. A smaller garage, perhaps 28 x 36 feet,would be more readily acceptable.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Garages are permitted accessory uses in residential areas and allow for the indoor, sheltered
storage of vehicles and other equipment. A larger garage would allow the property owner •
to keep more yard equipment and other things stored inside which would reduce exterior
clutter. A garage of this size, however, in this neighborhood would seem to conflict with
the Comp Plan relating to compatibility with the surrounding area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations:
1. The conditional use permit be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City
Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of
Mounds View.
2. The applicant shall be limited to a garage of no more than 28 feet wide by 36
feet long(1,008 square feet.) and be restricted to a height of no more than 15 feet.
3. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building
appearance with the dwelling unit.
4. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the
district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Notwithstanding allowances in
the Zoning Code, the oversized garage shall not be used for a repair business
whether or not such use would qualify as a home occupation. Should the
1110
use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall
become null and void.
Resolution No. 5098 (Option#2)
Planning Case No. 473-97, Oversized Garage CUP
March 24, 1997
• Page 4
5. The garage shall be situated parallel to the home such that it maintains a consistent
distance from the side of the home closest to the garage and not be set at an angle.
6. No other accessory buildings shall be allowed on this lot.
Adopted this 24th day of March, 1997.
Duane McCarty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chuck Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
411/
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\473-97\473-97CC.RS2
RESOLUTION 5098 (Option#3) •
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN
OVERSIZED GARAGE FOR TAMMY BELLAMY, 2185 PINEWOOD DRIVE;
PLANNING CASE NO. 473-97
WHEREAS, Tammy Bellamy has applied for a conditional use permit to allow an 1,260
square-foot oversized garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive, property legally described as:
LOT 32, BLOCK 8, PINEWOOD TERRACE NO. 3
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to
1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this
proposal:
a. Planning Application
b. Zoning Map
c. Site Plans
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings that the dimensional requirements in
•
the Zoning Code have been met:
Required Provided Met ?
Garage Setbacks (Front) 70 feet 80 feet Yes
(Side) 5 feet 11 feet Yes
(Rear) 5 feet 49 feet Yes
Percent of Rear Yard <25% 21% Yes
Garage Width s 35 feet 8 feet Yes
Area of all Accessory Buildings: s 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,260 Sq. ft. Yes
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings that possible adverse effects
have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.:
1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas
so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2185 Pinewood
Drive, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
in terms of land use.. •
Resolution No. 5098 (Option#3)
Planning Case No. 473-97, Oversized Garage CUP
March 24, 1997
• Page 2
2. The Geographical Area Involved. •
4. The Character of the Surrounding Area
The lots in this area are either the same size as the subject lot or are smaller. The homes in
this area are of a similar style and construction, with detached or attached garages. Since
2185 Pinewood is a corner lot and also fronts County Road I, it has more visibility than the
other homes in this area. The proposed garage is significantly larger than what is typical for
this area. In relation to the principal residence, the garage would be almost twice as large.
A smaller garage would be a better fit on this site than would the garage proposed by the
applicant.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed
Removing the existing, one car garage and replacing it with a new, larger garage would
create a trade-off. There would be a benefit to the area in the sense that it is an upgrade to
an existing building, and an improvement to the property. The negative aspect relates back
to the size--neighbors in the area have stated that the size of the proposed garage is simply
too out of proposrtion with the house and the neighboring homes.
1111 5. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use.
The applicant has stated that this garage is needed to store vehicles used for racing, a hobby
the residents partake in. Previously, the applicant was asked by the City to remove a large
car carrier from their rear yard. Currently, the car carrier is in the front driveway because
the existing garage is too small. A new, larger garage would enable the applicant to keep
the car carrier and race cars inside, as well as other yard appliances. Measurements taken
by staff, however, reveal that a 24 foot by 36 foot garage would also provide adequate
space needs. A garage of this size--864 square feet—would not require a conditional use
permit as it is the maximum size allowed without triggering a CUP.
• WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the criteria for
approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
The construction of an oversized garage to replace an existing garage would not create a
• greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it
create an appreciable increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the
Resolution No. 5098 (Option#3)
Planning Case No. 473-97, Oversized Garage CUP
March 24, 1997
Page 3
larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system.
(2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The proposed garage is expected to stand out in sharp contrast to the surrounding homes
and garages. The character of this area is one of small homes, small garages on small lots.
The City has received complaints from neighboring property owners objecting to this
project. A smaller garage, perhaps 24 x 36 feet, would be more readily acceptable to
neighbors.
(4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
(5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
•
Garages are permitted accessory uses in residential areas and allow for the indoor, sheltered
storage of vehicles and other equipment. A larger garage would allow the property owner
to keep more yard equipment and other things stored inside which would reduce exterior
clutter. A garage of this size, however, in this neighborhood would seem to c t lictt with
the Comp Plan relating to compatibility with the surrounding area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
recommends denial of the conditional use permit based upon the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed garage would be almost twice the size of the principal structure..
2. The applicant's car hauler can fit into a garage with a 36-foot depth.
3. The adjacent and neighboring property owners are opposed to the project.
4. A standard width for a two-car garage is 24 feet.
5. The garage would not be compatible with surrounding homes and garages.
6. The garage would not be adequately screened or separated from adjacent properties. •
Resolution No. 5098 (Option#3)
Planning Case No. 473-97, Oversized Garage CUP
March 24, 1997
• Page 4
Adopted this 24th day of March, 1997.
Duane McCarty,Mayor
ATTEST:
Chuck Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARODEVCASES\473-97\473-97CC.RS3
•
S
Item No. 1 /d
Staff Report No. 7�. DD7C
Meeting Date:March 24, 1997
Type of Business:PH
110
WIC:Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
CI of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson,Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Review of a Conditional Use Permit for on-site mobile
home sales at 2075 Rustad Lane;Planning Case No. 476-97
Date of Report: March 21, 1997
Summary:
On February 27, 1995,the City Council approved a CUP for William Liggett to allow on-site
display and sales of model manufactured homes in the Colonial Village Park. One of the
conditions of approval was that the CUP be subject to review after one year.
Discussion:
In Fall, 1996, the Planning Commission alerted current staff to the need to review this conditional
use permit for Colonial Village. The review was scheduled as soon as workload permitted,and
• was discussed by Planning Commission at their February 19 and March 5 meetings.
There are six contingencies attached to this CUP:
• The first requires that the CUP be recorded with Ramsey County. Staff has verified that
this was accomplished.
• The second requires that the number of model home units available for sale shall not
exceed six percent of the licensed lots. There are currently 194 lots within Colonial
Village, of which only three are model homes. This represents less than two percent.
• The third requires that the model homes be installed in compliance with all local and state
regulations. The homes are in compliance with all regulations,with the exception of the
primary staircases and entrance platforms which have minimal problems related to the
handrails and the height and width of the steps. These items have been an ongoing
problem with not only the model homes but other homes in the park. In the past,there has
been somewhat sporadic enforcement on this item due to workload. We have started
enforcing this provision,but consider it to be larger issue than just the model homes. It is
staff's preference to address the existing staircases through an overall approach to
enforcement in Colonial Village. Gary Pearson,representing Colonial Village, is seeking a
second opinion from State code enforcement officials as to the requirements for stairways
and railings. Staff will have pictures available at your meeting of the types of railings being
• used.
• The fourth requirement states that the City be sent a list of homes offered for sale, updated
every month. This requirement has been met.
V
City of Mounds View Staff Report
476-97: Colonial Village CUP
March 21, 1997
Page 2
• The fifth requirement puts limitations on the hours of walk-throughs. Carol Mueller,the
•
park manager, has indicated that they adhere to these hours and staff has not received any
complaints stating otherwise.
• The last requirement states that the CUP be subject to review after one year. Completing
this review will satisfy the last requirement of the CUP.
A copy of the original staff report and minutes from the February 24, 1994 meeting where action
was taken on the CUP,and Resolution No. 4719 which approved the CUP,are attached.
Staff is not aware of any problems directly associated with the CUP and does not have any
documented complaints regarding the display and sales of model homes in Colonial Village. Staff
notified the residents of Colonial Village Park in addition to the surrounding property owners
within 350 feet regarding the review of this CUP. At the Planning Commission meeting on March
5,there were a number of residents who attended. Those speaking expressed concerns about park
maintenance issues, whether the annual lot inspections by the park manager were more strict since
the mobile home sales started, and one individual asked whether they could be forced to move out
of the park based on the age of their mobile home. The maintenance issues were referred to the
park manager, who was present at the meeting, since they are not related to the conditional use
permit. The resident concerned about being forced to move was given a copy of the State law
governing mobile home parks which prohibits the age of a mobile home being used as the basis for
requiring a resident to relocate. Mr.Pearson indicated that he had only been conducting the
annual lot inspections for the last 1-2 years, and so was not able to compare current standards to
the standards required in the past. He stated that Colonial Village is working hard to keep up the
overall quality of the park and has published maintenance standards which are to be followed by
the residents.
The Planning Commission, at their March 5, 1997 meeting, passed a motion to recommend to the
Council that the CUP for Colonial Village be reconfirmed.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission, by a vote of six to zero, with one abstention,and staff recommend that
the City Council move to reconfirm the conditional use permit issued for on-site model home sales
with the same stipulations, based on the one-year review as required by the permit. (This action
may be taken by motion since the original CUP, passed by resolution, will continue in effect.)
7 ' es Ericson,Planning Associate
cc: Carol Mueller, 2075 Rustad Lane
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\476-97\COLVILG.CC
__ _
_. - µ:...ms,,_ �....w ,:, ...'"... ":".:'= --"CITY�OF-MOUNDS ..VIE'" �/2 C�95�
, - : - • PLANNING APPLICATI4.4 ,... .. :
APPLICANT: W i•l 1 l a wt L 1 6 G Err�' Gen-e,....18.-7-"y-" =Phone 93�-/S6� .. ._ .
CoLvwmz_ 1/!1-4A4E i7,47.2K , !S MN GEwf-EAG IRTNERstt/o :-: :. -= __ .
ADDRESS. - /4 Cl g -Mr.•I-ERRh F::=MPJ AiETQNK4•; .M N S53415-.. L_--- .- ._
-- Street Address, City State, and ode -_.L7: -_ _ -
interest in Property (check appropriate box): _ _
❑ ---
...,........_Owner of Prope-ny- - `'_ -- _ ;--.:-
__ _: .. - _.❑ ,-Contract for � .r . �--�• - ' ,�
: Deed Owner.-_:!: -. r_
- Cs�' ▪ ;L.escae;-0 erator,
p mer Profs. µa...
.f y"L _
- ❑ Agreement to Purchase _. • •
`Other (explain) C rr�e�+cr tem DEf-t ?>u R Ci IA S E,e -
rte` ,.. .f.-7..Documentary evidence of a - licant's urterest in the—ro-e- '"";.,.'1.-...% _
z _ ,„ �,r; �;.�x,.a. w ? Mro r P p ny maybe •required before final •City action of this req u ..--.1..':/..."..''':----4.- 4.'...r--.
" mi;a► - uest
, 'Y`-= .^" ,w.^-"'.."7.5,-_- t"w roti.+ "i rr.. ..-e. -;-�. __ "� .k« .'' ..s- .,.v
PROP -.� _ .. • .. --
ERTY INVOLVED r- _ _
,�W p,4gx,.t ..,�- _. -� .moi- y... .. :,.-.� • -
r "'Address/General Location • oFrtc.E -,ar "2o75 =RtisT�-a rL --
'7�i o u"Ai DS ti//�iJ '`1K,�/:r
=`Legal Description or Property Identification Number o5 3 o_z 3 -' /-a o Z�. �R
_. _ 425.-3o-z3 - - _.- -
Legal Owner: Name/Address ca t-otd rat- . VI�c •4 .
-_ E PA-RIG J.: * - MN aENiEIt.Q` -
PAaR1-NE12 S kf 1-P i/O 1 g -_:A-r 7-. 7-LA.. , Ml r ry iv E_7-a N e A- -nit A/ SS 3 S =
. Present Use (check appropriate box): _ _
7.".r._ 0 :..UndevelopedNacant -
❑ S• in g le Family
- -ateT_.;""::::::::4;:..41-:.!.G.". g - -
Dwelling ,,r
0 _Duplex/Two_Family Dwelling -c _ _
---___
.` ."-':-.'cc-:-..7'-'-s.:•••'. C� Muiti-Family (No..of Units =/q s' ) w
❑ , Business/Commercial Establishment ;z_......... ...,„,.,...,......_.,....ft....7,!^•'.7 }
4.': -.❑ Industrial Establish =-- =- -- .� T j 4
„ ._3 Establishment yam. _ :
---=Q Other. (explain) -.-.s:��.k..___,_ _..._.s. - . _ u -
Property Classification _[ <Abstract :.0 Torrens - - ::'::%-:::-:-. • _ _
REQUEST: .i ....-27-4. em
*Please note: Applicant may be responsible for additional fees associatedwith thee review of this request.
i HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE. T,-c.Ge-«--F Z-0.1.- r, - -- L Pt,,,�,�y
Signature
Rezoning $200/acre.minimum$200.maximum S1.000 Park Fund Dedication Fee
Variance . R-1 to R-2-$75,all others$200 - Date Paid
ndidonal Use Permit R-1 to R-2-$75,all others$200 • Receipt Number
ode Ao er - $75
Develop./Site Plan Review $100/acrI
e,minimum 100.maximum $500 Total Fees Paid ±/S-al:.
Minor Subdivision $150 Date Paid ..
Major Subdivision $250 plus S250 deposit - -” �-G—4�
Receipt Number '2 -Sc1l -
Camp. Plan Amendment' $200 '� '-
Netland Alteration Permit $30 plus deposit determined by Statf Additional Fee Paid
4111
Wetland Suffer Permit $10 Date Paid
Planning Sign $50 Receipt Number
PUD - S250 •
PUD Amendment $150 Date of final action
/, /� APPROVED Q DENIED ❑ TABLED 0
Date (,� - 9,..-97. Planning Case No. 3 4/ - Q 4 Admin.Account No.
I .. �
•
L A I N. E
• •S •
- - �: cGL _ :..:_._.- .CRP I 1
-
•
•
�itvy _ =Z.
n r n n •
N N N N N
I
I 1 I
n nn n n , «
NIN
N N N N
O A N I �"•.
........................2 13
',4,21,..:;4' NIN I N '...373 T•• )/ •A.4ib ::I
5741 /
• �,,� T PARK 5731r„,
I I
'ENFIELD ` 0011010100[ '�� �;HI NIN N Nr/r.•l>r♦�.NINN NQa,\°Ic+\ca� N 1 OR 5721
C'1 GJ V �p I •
-
�o, c+ p\'\41,ola I u-1 N 2 f o - 571
1,1 f r N NIN 224 N _% .4
��v7 e. m,„,\,,. N1NNIN NIN NIN
�a�r c'' TCc+C 1 c- la Ill �". 4 N 1`�I 22001 5701 i I ��
rl�N\, p! 0C o._,,N} n N 22331 1 5691 d •
44-4 t c. 0f+� a r 1 T0 n c ��p\�o7 3 5681 J#Ii
4.4 .4.1 :� j I -
w,04 cm
•1'p, �.��d\r 5671' l /
lill
N. n N -O•-r1 V\,. cid, c, 5661:
1: olau
I PI In
/ /CDIIV NIFIL Y3/ I
RO_^ �`' S MO81LFlHQk(E PAR} W
�. II T1`� "\ " n 1. a nN N4 NI N4 rin = I 1 •
InININ1(4 " N N NcAlt,,,-\., CT, g I NININININN C4 ININI 111 2 g I N I N I NIN I NI NI N1 N ��
N
n ill
1 01 HII.:.YIEW rt13 L:.
H N 1 0 O 4 O T 1
7 O 'I ' g1,9,1 —a,1812,-
I C L'�-
TI� OI NIT
I N NI N1 N N OlI mI^ �� N N1 NI --•
CI Ola - m '.-:1 ICs 91 OIN gI
N N N N N N g g I N N I g l m I'- _ I O I O C I ',:2.:,-I
YCCO I N N N N NiN N I Nil N4 /�r� -1 r, N l m INI
OR 1 1 1 INI NI NI NIN oAKW+VQ N1 NIN; NININ N NIN N'IC' O
t 3614 on+lmi^�1 n1� a _I !_ FARK I I I I I
-1_6161..62 N N N NINI�IIn nim I !4
J 5 5- NI N INI NIN ry N'v�glN/N NIN I^ OIm 1 5590 (•1011,IN IQI ISI nI 1,;a)INif
/1 61a-61 1- 56T "ININ 1.2!r..10,1,..,1,,
NI PF -- n - - IO alalN..1...
N OA NIN Icv INI 1 !� 1-I-1-r 01010 CI
1 /�W C co Ni I NIN NIN I N 1 N I N 1 N I N or.
5608560x-{ 56C ,;,.41g1,410.1N1II:IuaIm niT OR
N 1� rrr•1
5504 5.601 56CCi v7 N NI led NI NI N'NII N(C41,41,,,,•:::9 I I\I.O 1 1n 1�1 r 1 n 1 n I N I m 1 0;Q I cA i m i ,"
n i 011e in , c4:04 NIN i I r- - -1-I- -"- _ c":"c'''
15. 55 OI nI I I N NININ NIN g NIN N N N NI OI OtQ 10
L1....6['7550 6- N4 N4 ININ Ni ,..4 PnT'Ol/.-ln f ' I I I I I I I I 1" I I I I IgININ�" 1n Cr)
N N N/ n
%15.5561e=5,... , �t 5.5,r.� NI 7N��Nf N�N�N�NJQ1^Im 11 NIOfIn IIII OIIn IIS IOI-I nIr,I-1YI r�i-
101 'C. N NI I- .-,...1.-.....9..•,..1...)..•
I�I�I�i, n n N
..5 c ee m OI♦ ml R NI _I^II."01 ca.- 010 Ltl
� .. ..�il�� N1a Im;^INI*JIQ AC" NIN NII 1-IN4 INI 07 -I-.QIO O QIC 1... !
C.'
N N N N11n/;IID �� NI NI NI NIN IN NIN NIN/N NININ
5544155 :1'- 55 NDN N NI N/g4, gl N/N'cQV IV' . OR Q 1
N) n In NI N `-41NI NIN(O f 4 10 l m N i Ip l
n ni rnl I is.I- NI N/ QI CI.. n GI nI HIT co <V cI air l., c ,^
55381°..5.j G T Tl ml rlr�lm v)f1n+N I�I NI gI CVl - -I-.- _;, Higs —I-.Q IOII JI CC
`�"' NS NI NI NI NINlg/T'Pf IW NI NI- } g Ig _ g Q I TI mII0,c,
5 .152._
- J110
la N I NININ CSI i 4 N NIN ��jr... I N Z N 1 1 N I N I N N g N N N N c•41,...1(sit{y 1N (,yI
_,"5321553 56 PINEWOOD " N�wice r ? 1 1 1^I I ; I I I I I H
nSSZ61`,52.N 552612 ea� I I I ' OR v/ v/^���n 1inlminlnlalinln1m -i n I I—I� n1^ z
m lc n Ip m Q , 'm +Q 7"...I a_ n_I mIK7Ian �_ n_In_ N_I.-�^1_a rnIm m�r�lr�
552015521 5520 N1cv1NIP11Nf`,41g.41"
IN N/N/N/N /- N NI NI NIN;gI gIN INIg gI NI NININ MINI
111 N N I N I N I N Ns N v I
RD I 1
Zoning Map Planning Case No. 476-97
Colonial Village Manufactured Home Park
N ".
2075 Rustad Lane
•
FENCED
bile, STCRACE
AREA
\ r^C `u.% bee toe bag ZIOs tb! Le. 2049 mos tem,' zoo. to Eorr 207S :3w:
• tri `•aa
^ n a• t
y
V•,.
tM
7. 43016 %
rt.
n C .
2092 2099 2010 2640 ,t,A7
•
r
I QUAKER LANE
e ^ n
6 • •
• G x G
M
i
•
" 7.
:
wv Q n vw• � re
ct 9
" n F °
p. N ce w
a. J " Pt AY
i
a I ,m GROUND1t�� O R . •
Q e =
U 2 N : \
0 N
•
C ^ . V ^ m N 1
^ ^ C I Q T • •. a IIUi a
cc
^ •
° a 1, J Z
" x H 4 I • tI uA a
n7.1
v " n e 8 I p� N n
J �ir rE h e
7.
/ 2091 ^
N
/ Rv5TA0 LANE
/ oro La •U0e 000 2004 20,23 ie/r b/a 2042 2010 2070 x094
1 toxo soar L070 ' xota eGtw
wl
-= I
1
,11 JOI 9i.t xbs 1,41 t rel
`� !441 met !ef! 2041 ?O9e •0}7 20+7 !Old 209. _e.} I •2 47 ,7M :d1!
i
CORNEtL CR.
2n4 J00 '404 224• 2!w Z 40 2090 :OSI sok 2LC• mats 2600 1070 2094 LON
2092 Z070 WO 12046 !LaK 20ii
/ I
1
/777A,f,c Locations of Model Homes
ID
Site Plan Planning Case No. 476-97
Colonial Village Manufactured Home Park / 7
2075 Rustad Lane L
Icrf
cc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
OE
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Section: 10_ - _ a
firS port Number: 95-1236C6c Report Date: 2-23-95
"y}f Council Action:
110 0 Special Order of Business
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE February 27, 1995 a3 Public Hearings .
Cl Consent Agenda
0 Council Business
Item Description: Consideration of Resolution No. 4719 Request for Conditional Use Permit for
Willaim Liggett, Colonial Village Manufactured Home Park
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
( )
Expianation/Summary (attach supplement sheets u necessary.)
UMMARY;
Bill Liggett, owner of Colonial Village Manufactured Home Park, has made
application far a Conditional Use permit to allow the display and sale of
model homes within Colonial Village Park. Chapter 1110 . 04 Subdivision 5
of the Mounds View Municipal Code allows model homes within a manufactured
home park (R-5 zoning district) with the issuance of a Conditional Use
Permit. Mr. Liggett's request, if approved, would allow the display and
sale of up to seven (7) homes.
11)
The applicant's request is a result of his desire to upgrade the housing ,
stock within the manufactured home park. As opportunities arise (lot
•
vacancies) , the applicant would locate new homes on those vacancies and
market them to the general public. All models would be fully set up
including all appropriate utility connections being made. It is the
applicants hope that this approach will lead to the overall improvement of
the housing stack within Colonial Village.
•
When reviewing the
9' request, the Mounds View Planning Commission considered
among others, the following issues: '
• 1) Impacts of granting the Conditional Use Permit on traffic
and
parking patterns within the Manufactured Home Park.
• 2) Is the requested number of model. homes (7) appropriate in
relation to the overall size of the Park?
• 3) What assurances does the City have' that the models will turn
over on a regular basis?
•
Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator
4111
S
37COMYTEN DATTON;
Adopt Resolution No. 4719 approving a Conditional Use Permit for William
Liggett, Colonial Village Manufact-:r=ei urIT.,o om.-ir
STAFF REPORT
PAGE TWO
FEBRUARY 27, 1995
410
4) Will "trade-ins" be removed from the Park or, will they
be marketed on-site?
Following discussion of these and other issues with the applicant,
the Planning Commission was satisfied with the concept of model
home sales in general. At their January 4, 1995 meeting, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 410-95 (copy attached)
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Please note
the conditions which were placed on the recommendation.
Following discussion at the February Work Session, and as directed
by the Council, Staff has drafted the attached Resolution for
consideration. Please note that the Resolution includes the
conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission.
4111 • 4111
•
•
•
4110•
Mounds View City Council Page 3
Regular Meeting February 27, 1995
III
III
•
-Pr PUBLIC HEARINGS :
Consideration of Resolution No. 4719 Request for Conditional Use
Permit for William Li aaett to Allow Disclav and Sale of Model Homes
at Colonial Village Manufactured Home Park
Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 7 : 22 p.m.
•
Mounds View City Council . Page 4
Regular Meeting February 27, 1995
Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, reported that
• William Liggett would like to be allowed to sell model homes within
his manufactured home park. Municipal Code allows for this type of
activity with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, which would
guarantee that certain conditions would be adhered to, such as
traffic and parking patterns within the manufactured home park, the
number of homes that could be displayed, and the hours that homes
can be displayed.
The purpose of this application was to systematically upgrade this
park as lots become available, thereby bringing up the overall
quality of the manufactured home park. This item was reviewed by
the Planning Commission and they recommend approval of the
Conditional Use Permit. This item was also discussed at a Council
Work Session earlier in the month.
Mayor Linke offered a clarification of the type of homes that wo ,lyd,
be sold from Colonial Village Manufactured Home Park. In reality,
they are not model homes that would be sold, but rather spec homes.
Harrington affirmed that the homes would be fully conn. <<31c. tee. to
water and sewer and would be ready to live in.
Councilmember Trude remarked that this Conditional Use Permit would
4111
encourage updating the stock within the Colonial Village
Manufactured Home Park.
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 7: 26 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Adopt Resolution No. 4719 Approving
Conditional Use Permit for William Liggett to Allow Display and
Sale of Model Homes at Colonial Village Manufactured Home Park
Councilmember Quick stated that he viewed this action as a step
toward improving the overall appearance of the manufactured housing
park.
VOTE': 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 4719
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW .
COUNTY OF RAMSEY4111
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW DISPLAY AND SALE OF MODEL HOMES AT COLONIAL
VILLAGE MANUFACTURED HOME PARK, PLANNING CASE NO. 391-94
WHEREAS, Colonial Village Manufactured Home Park has
made application to allow the display and sale of model homes
within the Park; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted the following
items as part of the application:
1. Planning Application dated June 29, 1994
2 . Letter outlining proposal dated December 6, 1994
3 . Site Plan dated December 6, 1994
WHEREAS, Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code
allows the display and sale of model homes within a manufactured
home park with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the
request against the criteria listed in Title 1100 governing
issuance of Conditional Use Permits. 410
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View
City Council approves the requested conditional use permit for
the display and sale of model homes at Colonial Village
Manufactured Home Park, contingent upon the following:
1) A copy of this Conditional use permit shall be recorded
with Ramsey County.
2) Number of units available far sale at any one time
shall not exceed 6% of licensed lots.
3) Units offered far sale shall be installed in compliance
with all applicable City and State regulations
governing Manufactured Homes.
4) A current list of properties, updated monthly, upon
which model homes are offered for sale shall be
provided by the applicant and kept on file at City
Hall.
5) Marketing of the model homes including walk-throughs
and open houses shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m.
to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday; 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
41/0
Resolution No. 4719
Page Two
1111
Saturday and; 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Sunday.
6) This Conditional Use Permit is subject to review after
one year by the City.
Adopted this 27th day of February, 1995
ATTEST:
(SEAL) May.
,5;
Clerk-Administrator
lir
Item No. H A
• Staff Report No. q7 Zdo$L
Meeting Date:
Type of Business:
III WK:: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Chuck Whiting, Administrator ,,/„
From: Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation Sr-Forestry ��
Item Title/Subject: Upgrade for cable audio for work sessions and general
cable telecasting equipment upgrade.
Date of Report: March 19, 1997
Blumberg Communications visited City Hall to observe the set-up of the City Council Chambers
and Cable TV system. A proposal was submitted for the upgrade of the system specifically for
televising City Council Work Sessions, having a different set-up than typical City Council
meetings. This upgrade is necessary because the current audio system is not flexible enough to
serve both the needs of the Council dias setting and the large round table setting. And, as we all
know, audio has been a problem during work sessions. This upgraded system will provide the
audio necessary for work sessions. The cost of the upgrade is $3,490.
Because this upgrade was not budgeted, a budget amendment is necessary. There is sufficient ,
0 funding in the Cable TV fund to transfer to the 1997 Cable TV budget. The proposal includes
equipment and installation.
Blumberg Communications will be able to begin work on this upgrade as soon as proper
approvals are granted.
Other equipment is necessary to adequately televise City meetings. The Cable TV Commission
evaluated current equipment and needs and has recommended the purchase of the following
equipment to further assist in televising of city meetings and programs:
* 3 -wireless headsets for 2 camera technicians and 1 control room producer so that they
can communicate with each other. Cost - $297
* Gaffers Tape for cable repairs, taping down cable, etc. Cost - $11.99
* Two each cables and adapters necessary for City Hall programs, telecasting meetings,
interviews, shoots, etc. Cost - $61.80
* VCR which will provide another deck for replaying tapes. Cost $309
* Light kit for better lighting when using City Hall for shooting shows. Cost $759
• * Tax and freight. Estimated cost $143.47
City of Mounds View Staff Report
March 19, 1997 •
Page 2
The estimated cost for the above equipment is $1,582.26 tax and freight charges. •
including
Recommendation: Request the City Council to approve a budget amendment for the transfer of
$5,072 from the Cable TV Franchise Fund to the 1997 Cable TV budget for the upgrade of audio
system in the City Council chambers for televising work sessions and general equipment needs for
Cable TV production.
•
•
i..
«<<j r '•Il r*",...• A w
BLUMBERG COMMUNICATIONS ° ..
T'� Date 4 r:';l+ ?<; €:
}«••.. le
Patrick Toth March 5, 1997
Ilknization Propoaed Shipping Datc
of Moundsview 7-10 Days A.R.O.
Address To Bo Shipp,d VIA.
• Best Way PRICE
City State Zip Code P.Q.R.
Factory QUOTATiON
Phone Fax Terms;
784-0618 784-3462 Net 30 Days
antes Representative *Terms are subject to approval by offer credit department.
#71 Rob Liebl
OTT MODEL# BRAND AND DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT
1 AMS4000 Shure Four Input Automatic Mixer $1205.00 $1205.00
The Eight Input Version would be$1715.00 50.00
$0.00
1 BCISNAKE Blumberg Custom Snake For Twelve Mics -S335.136 $335.00
Z..S`�/�
Add on of junction box would be$175.00 $0,00
$0.00
0 A-MS2S Shure Lovelier Mics Designed Specifically for Shure $195.00 $1950.00
AMS Products. Includes20'
Cable $0.00
$0.00
25'Mic. Cables $15.00 $0.00
50'Mic Cables $25.00 $0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
•
$0.00
$0.00
Quote Prepared By: Sub-Total $3490.00
*Price does not include
Quote Valid for 30 Days tax or shipping charges
III
525 IY. Washington Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel 612-333-1271 800-2924125 Fax 612-333-0225
Florida Georgia Michigan Minnesota North Carolina South Carolina
IO/I0 'd I£OLVZN756t 'ON XV.d 'SIN 'NR ON38W1118 9I :Lt 3111 LB—II-33W
,
Item No.
Staff'Report No. 97—.20 C
Meeting Date: 3/24/97
Type of Business: CB
• WK Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Introduction for First Reading of Ordinance No. 594,An Ordinance
Amending Chapters 606, 607 and 1005 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code Related to the Requirement to Mow Tall Grasses and
Creating an Exemption for Wetland and Native Vegetation; Planning
Case No. SP-012-97
Date of Report: March 20, 1997
Summary:
At your meeting on February 24, the City Council conducted the public hearing on this ordinance
and then tabled first reading. The ordinance as proposed at that time would give the following
4110 exemptions to the requirement to mow"tall grasses" in excess of eight inches:
1. Native wetland vegetation found in floodplains, drainage ponds or ditches which store
and convey stormwater
2. Native vegetation found in natural areas which are part of public open space, parks and
nature centers.
3. Natural plantings, wetland and meadow vegetation indigenous to Minnesota, grown on
any occupied lot or parcel of land and maintained as part of a landscape treatment or
garden area approved by the Director of Community Development.
4. An area where the land and vegetation appear not to have been graded, landscaped,
mowed or otherwise disturbed by human or mechanical means at any time.
5. Prairie land restoration by an educational institution or public agency, in areas of at least
five acres
A concern was expressed at the Council meeting about#3 above, in that areas left natural on
individual lots in developed residential neighborhoods may become an annoyance to the neighbors
and that the City would be opening the door to a continuing problem. There was concern
• expressed about native vegetation spreading into neighbors' yards. City Council suggested that
Planning Commission discuss the proposed ordinance further and provide additional input.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
Ordinance 594: Tall Grasses
March 20, 1997
Page 2
The Planning Commission is recommending that Item#3 be changed to read as follows:
Areas on any occupied lot or parcel of land having wetland-type vegetation because of
neighborhood drainage patterns, where the drainage pattern is evident on contour maps
and from field observation, and the vegetation is confined to a'single lot, separated from
adjacent lots, and managed so as not to be a nuisance.
This change would limit the type of vegetation to wetland-type grasses only rather than also
allowing natural plantings and meadow vegetation, which is much more susceptible to spreading
into adjacent yards. Planning Commission felt that in some cases it is difficult to fight the natural
conditions where there is boggy soil and require mowing. Staff is checking with Rick Wriskey as
to whether wetland grasses are unlikely to spread into adjacent yards because they require wet
conditions to flourish.
Recommendation:
Option#1: The Planning Commission, by a unanimous vote, and Staff recommend City Council
adoption of Ordinance 594 with the change noted above, which would allow exemptions from the
noxious weed and tall grass provisions of the Municipal Code.
Option#2: Ordinance 594 be adopted with exemption#3 removed.
11111
Two ordinances have been prepared for City Council following Option#1 and Option#2.
%°
rJ WikklOS
James Ericson, Planning Associate
cc: Keith King, 8380 Greenwood Drive
r
ORDINANCE NO. 594 (Option#1)
0 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 606, 607 AND 1005 OF'ME
MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT TO MOW
TALL GRASSES AND CREATING AN EXEMPTION FOR WETLAND AND NATIVE
VEGETATION
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Chapter 606 of the Mounds View Public Health and Safety Code is
amended by adding new language and subdivisions exempting certain land uses and landscape
treatments from Section 606.02, entitled"DESTRUCTION OF WEEDS BY OWNER":
606.02: DESTRUCTION OF WEEDS BY OWNER: All such grass and weeds shall be
cut, pulled or destroyed whenever they shall exceed a height of eight (8) inches. The following
areas and types of vegetation are exempted from this provision if managed in a manner so as not
5 to become infested with noxious weeds or to create a stagnant, foul smelling condition:
Subd. 1. Native wetland vegetation found in floodplains, drainage ponds or ditches which store
and convey stormwater.
Subd. 2. Native vegetation found in natural areas which are part of public open space,
parks and nature centers.
Subd. 3. Areas on any occupied lot or parcel of land having wetland-type vegetation because of
neighborhood drainage patterns, where the drainage pattern is evident on contour maps
and from field observation, and the vegetation is confined to a single lot, separated from
adjacent lots, and managed so as not to be a nuisance.
Subd. 4. An area where the land and vegetation appear not to have been graded, landscaped,
mowed or otherwise disturbed by human or mechanical means at any time. The Director
of Community Development shall use reasonable judgement in determining what
constitutes this type of area based on the present appearance of the area and research as to
the history of the area, if such information is available.
0 Subd. 5. An area of at least five (5) acres used by an educational institution or public agency for
prairie land restoration, if the prior vegetation is eliminated and the prairie vegetation is
Ordinance No. 594
April 14, 1997
Page 2
planted through transplanting or seed. The area shall be cut at least once per year to a
height of no more than eight (8) inches if weeds cover more than 25 percent of the area.
If such mowing is necessary and the area is likely to be seen by the public, a sign shall be
posted advising that a meadow or prairie is being established. The size of the sign shall be
one(1) square-foot and it shall be no higher than three(3) feet.
SECTION 2: Chapter 607 of the Mounds View Public Health and Safety Code is
amended by adding new language to Subdivision ig of Section 607.03, entitled"NUISANCES
ENUMERATED":
g. All noxious weeds, "tall grasses" defined as anything over eight (8) inches in height,
and other rank growths', except as exempted in Section 606.02 of this Code.
SECTION 3: Chapter 1005 of the Mounds View Building Code is amended by adding
new language to a footnote within Subdivision 3 of Section 1005.05, entitled"11EALTU AND
SANITATION STANDARDS":
Subd. 3. Noxious weeds: All exterior property areas shall be kept free from species of weeds or
plant growth which are noxious or detrimental to the public health2.
SECTION 4: El 1 ECTIVE DATE: This ordinance goes into effect upon adoption by
the City Council and 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on , 1997.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of
, 1997.
Duane McCarty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk—Administrator
(SEAL)
2 See also Section 607.03, Subd. 1(g) and Section 606.02 of this Code.
Ordinance No. 594
April 14, 1997
• Page 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert Long, City Attorney
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROJ\SP012.97\WEEDS.OR1
•
ORDINANCE NO. 594 (Option #2)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW •
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 606, 607 AND 1005 OF THE
MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO 'THE REQUIREMENT TO MOW
TALL GRASSES AND CREATING AN EXEMPTION FOR WETLAND AND NATIVE
VEGETATION
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Chapter 606 of the Mounds View Public Health and Safety Code is
amended by adding new language and subdivisions exempting certain land uses and Id : e
treatments from Section 606.02, entitled"DESTRUCTION OF WEEDS BY OWNER":
606.02: DESTRUCTION OF WEEDS BY OWNER: All such grass and weeds shall be
cut, pulled or destroyed whenever they shall exceed a height of eight (8) inches. The following
areas and types of vegetation are exempted from this provision if managed in a manner so as not
to become infested with noxious weeds or to create a stagnant, foul smelling condition:
Subd. 1. Native wetland vegetation found in floodplains, drainage ponds or ditches which store
and convey stormwater.
Subd. 2. Native vegetation found in natural areas which are part of public open sy ace
parks and nature centers.
Subd. 3. An area where the land and vegetation appear not to have been graded, landscaped,
mowed or otherwise disturbed by human or mechanical means at any time. The Director
of Community Development shall use reasonable judgement in determining what
constitutes this type of area based on the present appearance of the area and research as to
the history of the area, if such information is available.
Subd. 4. An area of at least five (5) acres used by an educational institution or public agency for
prairie land restoration, if the prior vegetation is eliminated and the prairie vegetation is
planted through transplanting or seed. The area shall be cut at least once per year to a
height of no more than eight (8) inches if weeds cover more than 25 percent of the area.
If such mowing is necessary and the area is likely to be seen by the public a si shall be
posted advising that a meadow or prairie is being established. The size of the sign shall be
one(1) square-foot and it shall be no higher than three (3) feet.
Ordinance No. 594
April 14, 1997
• Page 2
SECTION 2: Chapter 607 of the Mounds View Public Health and Safety Code is
amended by adding new language to Subdivision lg of Section 607.03, entitled"NUISANCES
ENUMERATED":
g. All noxious weeds, "tall grasses" defined as anything over eight (8) inches in height,
and other rank growths'. except as exempted in Section 606.02 of this Code.
SECTION 3: Chapter 1005 of the Mounds View Building Code is amended by adding
new language to a footnote within Subdivision 3 of Section 1005.05, entitled" AETU AND
SANITATION STANDARDS":
Subd. 3. Noxious weeds: All exterior property areas shall be kept free from species ,'Z i; O
plant growth which are noxious or detrimental to the public health2.
SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance goes into effect upon adoption by
the City Council and 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper.
• Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on , 1997.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of
, 1997.
Duane McCarty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk—Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert Long, City Attorney
• :\DA2 See also subd. G04.03(1)(11) Section 607.03. Subd. 1(g) and Section 606.02 of this Code.
TA\USERS\P \.S
N AMS HARE\SPECPROJ\SP012.97\WEEDS.OR2
Item No. C
Staff Report No. 97-,a0/a�.
Meeting Date: 3/24/97
Type of Business: CB
•
WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Pamela Sheldon,Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Introduction for first reading of Ordinance No.595,An Ordinance
adding day care centers and group nurseries as a conditional use in the
B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4,and I-1 zoning districts;Planning Case No. SP-013-
97
Date of Report: March 20, 1997
Summary:
At your meeting on February 24,the City Council conducted the public hearing on this ordinance
and then tabled first reading. At the present time, day care centers and group nurseries are allowed
in the R-1,R-2,R-3,R-4,R-5 and R-O districts. The proposal would allow day care centers and
group nurseries in the B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4 and I-1 districts with approval of a conditional use
permit. The ordinance as proposed at that time would have included criteria for review of the
conditional use permit which were the same as are now applied in the residential districts. These
criteria are:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
g
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fences and/or screened in accordance with conditions as
specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
g. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
Two issues were of concern to City Council:
• If day care centers are placed in business and industrial districts, it is possible that they will
be located next to streets which carry higher volumes of traffic,and children will be
subjected to higher levels of exhaust fumes. The question was asked whether a criteria
• should be added which would address this possibility.
• The question was asked whether there should be a distance requirement between day care
•
City of Mounds View Staff Report
Ordinance 595: Day Care Centers
March 20, 1997
Page 2
centers and group nurseries and businesses serving liquor, liquor stores and adult 4111)
establishments.
City Council suggested that Planning Commission discuss these issues,and provide further input
on possible changes to the ordinance to address them. The following additional information was
provided to Planning Commission.
Fumes:
According to Gary Eckhardt, at the Minnesota Air Pollution Control Agency,there are no permits
required from this agency for day care centers. Craig Hill,at the Minnesota Department of Human
Services,Licensing Division, indicated that there are no requirements relative to air pollution
levels which must be met in order to license a day care center.
Stiff also asked Mr. Eckhardt to what degree vehicle traffic creates air pollution for adjacent land
uses and how the problem of fumes might be addressed. He indicated that the studies which have
been done show that intersections on high volume streets where a significant numbers of vehicles
stop, idle and start,and congested roadways create the most localized pollution for adjacent land
uses. Meteorological conditions also enter into the picture. He suggested that if a land use was
200 feet from the pollution source,the localized effect is more or less dissipated.
He also noted that some soils along highway rights-of-way have lead contamination from when
cars used lead-based gasoline. Soil testing would show if this was an issue in the play yard.
The current criteria for day care centers and group nurseries state that these sites shall be served by
arterial or collector streets. These are the streets carrying the higher traffic volumes. So a
balancing act is required between keeping day care centers on higher volume streets so they do not
add traffic to neighborhoods, and protecting the children from fumes. Stiff feels the most practical
way to address this issue is to direct attention to Highway 10, which carries a very high volume of
traffic and is unique in the community, and decide whether or not a distance requirement from
Highway 10 is needed. If arterial and collector streets are included in general, existing elementary
schools and day care centers will become non-conforming (examples: Pinewood Elementary,
Sunnyside Christian Day Care). Even if our attention is confined to Highway 10, any distance
requirement with make Kinder Care a non-conforming use.
Distance Requirement from Certain Businesses:
The City Code requires that premises holding a intoxicating liquor license be 500 feet from any
school or church except that the 500 foot requirement shall not apply to any premise that receives
at least sixty percent of its annual gross sales revenue form the sale of food(Section 502.05, Subd.
2). Day care centers are not mentioned as one of the uses triggering the 500 foot distance
requirement. If it is the City's desire to have new day care centers located at least 500 feet from
liquor establishments,then a criterion to this effect needs to be added to the conditional use permit
requirements for day care centers. Adding this criterion will not prevent new liquor •
establishments from locating within 500 feet of an existing day care center. The liquor code would
City of Mounds View Staff Report
Ordinance 595:Day Care Centers
March 20, 1997
Page 3
• need to be amended to address this issue.
The City Code requires a license for adult establishments which include: adult body painting
studios, adult bookstores,adult cabarets, companionship establishments, conversation/rap parlors,
adult health/sport club, adult hotel/motel,adult massage parlor, adult mini-motion picture theater,
adult modeling studio, adult motion picture arcade,adult motion picture theater,adult novelty
business,adult sauna, adult steam room/bathhouse facility. Such establishments shall not be
located within 500 feet of a residential zoning district, public facilities zoning district, school,
church, library or commercial day care center.
These regulations will prevent new adult establishments from locating within 500 feet of existing
day care centers, but will not prevent a new day care center from locating within 500 feet of an
existing adult business. To address this situation, a distance requirement needs to be added to the
criteria applicable to day care centers.
Options:
1. The following criteria would be added for approval of conditional use permits for day care
centers and group nurseries in business and industrial districts:
■ The distance between any outdoor play yard for a day care center or group nursery and the
• Highway 10 right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 200 feet, except as provided in
Section 1123.02 Subd.l.c.
■ No day care center or group nursery shall be permitted where the distance from the
property line for the day care center or group nursery to a premise requiring a liquor
license, as provided in Section 502 of the Municipal Code, or a license for an adult
establishment, as provided in Section 513 of the Municipal Code, is five hundred(500)
feet or less, except that the 500 foot requirement shall not apply to any liquor
establishment receiving at least sixty percent of its annual gross sales revenue from the sale
of food.
•
2. Option#1 plus adding the distance requirements to the residential districts, with a
provision that existing day care centers will not be made non-conforming
3. Adopt Ordinance No. 595 be adopted as originally proposed.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission, by a unanimous vote, and the staff recommend
approval of Ordinance No. 595 with the addition of distance requirements for day care centers in
residential, business and industrial districts, as long as a provision which states that an existing day
care center shall not become non-conforming by virtue of the adoption of this ordinance(Option
#2). Three ordinances have been prepared for City Council consideration,following the options
noted above.
.
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROASP013.97\DAYCARE.CC2
ORDINANCE NO. 595 (Option#1)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE ADDING DAY CARE CENTERS AND GROUP NURSERIES AS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE B-1,13-2,B-3,B-4,AND I-1 ZONING DISTRICTS;
PLANNING CASE NO. SP-013-97
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1102.02, Subd. 23 and 24 are amended to read as follows:
Subd. 23. Day Care Center; Group Nursery: A • . • • • . •• • 1 1 •• 1 11.. •
.. . • .. ._ .. .. . . .. 1 : . •1 . •. 1 .. . facility for the care and
supervision of more than ten(10) preschool and school age children during established business
hours for periods of less than 24 hours per day, and which is licensed and approved by the State
of Minnesota. Also includes preschools and nursery schools.
Subd. 24. Day Care, Home: �. • . ' • • _ •
1.. . .. .. . . 11• • • • . . . . 1 : . • . .. . •■ The use of a
residence for the care of ten(10) or fewer preschool and school age children during established
business hours for less than 24 hours per day, and which is licensed and approved by the State of 410
Minnesota.
SECTION 2: Section 1102.02 is amended to add the following definition as a subdivision,
placed in alphabetical order, and the remaining subdivisions in Section 1102.02 being renumbered
accordingly.
Subd. XX. Day Care, Group Family: The use of residence for the care of fourteen(14) or fewer
preschool and school age children during established business hours for less than 24 hours per
day, and which is licensed and approved by the State of Minnesota.
SECTION 3. Section 1107.05 Subd. 2. is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Day care center, group nursery; provided;that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#1
March 10, 1997
Page 2
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
g. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
SECTION 4. Section 1110.04 Subd. 7. is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 7. Day care center.group nursery; provided;that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35').
1111 c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
g. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
SECTION 5. Section 1112.04 (conditional uses in the B-1 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 5 as follows:
(Same as Option#2)
SECTION 6. Section 1113.04 (conditional uses in the B-2 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 6 as follows:
(Same as Option#2)
•
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#1
March 10, 1997
Page 3 •
SECTION 7. Section 1114.04 (conditional uses in the B-3 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 9 as follows:
(Same as Option#2)
SECTION 8. Section 1115.04 (conditional uses in the B-4 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 6 as follows:
(Same as Option#2)
SECTION 9. Section 1116.04 (conditional uses in the I-1 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 21 as follows:
(Same as Option#2)
SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance goes into effect upon adoption of the
City Council and 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on •
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of
, 1997.
Duane McCarty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert Long, City Attorney
N:\DATA\USERS\DAMS\SHAREISPECPROASP013.971DAYCARE.ORI •
ORDINANCE NO. 595 (Option#2)
IIICITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE ADDING DAY CARE CENTERS AND GROUP NURSERIES AS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE B-1,B-2, B-3, B-4,AND I-1 ZONING DISTRICTS;
PLANNING CASE NO. SP-013-97
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1102.02, Subd. 23 and 24 are amended to read as follows:
Subd. 23. Day Care Center; Group Nursery: A •' . • • • • . 'III I •• ; ;. . •
•
school or preschool age are cared for during c'stablished business hours, facility for the care and
supervision of more than ten(10) preschool and school age children during established business
hours for periods of less than 24 hours per day, and which is licensed and approved by the State
of Minnesota. Also includes preschools and nursery schools.
Subd. 24. Day Care, Home: - .. ; • • •• ... _ ' •• ; al , .• . ;I _ .
;. . • •• .. . . •. _ . • • • . . . 1 : • . , • .. . •. . The use of a
. residence for the care of ten(10) or fewer preschool and school age children during established
business hours for less than 24 hours per day, and which is licensed and approved by the State of
Minnesota.
SECTION 2: Section 1102.02 is amended to add the following definition as a subdivision,
placed in alphabetical order, and the remaining subdivisions in Section 1102.02 being renumbered
accordingly.
Subd. XX. Day Care, Group Family: The use of residence for the care of fourteen(14) or fewer
preschool and school age children during established business hours for less than 24 hours per
day, and which is licensed and approved by the State of 11Tnnesota.
SECTION 3. Section 1107.05 Subd. 2. is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Day care center, group nursery; provided;that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty (40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
•
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#2
March 10, 1997
Page 2
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
g. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
h. The distance between any outdoor play yard for a day care center or group nursery
and the Highway 10 right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 200 feet, except as
• provided in Section 1123.02 Subd.l.c.
No day care center or group nursery shall be permitted where the distance from
the property line for the day care center or group nursery to a premise requiring a
liquor license, as provided in Section 502 of the Municipal Code, or a license for
an adult establishment, as provided in Section 513 of the Municipal Code, is five
hundred (500) feet or less, except that the 500 foot requirement shall not apply to
any liquor establishment receiving at least sixty percent of its annual gross sales
revenue from the sale of food. •
SECTION 4. Section 1110.04 Subd. 7. is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 7. Day care center, group nursery; provided;that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
g. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
h. The distance between any outdoor play yard for a day care center or group nursery •
and the Highway 10 right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 200 feet, except as
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#2
March 10, 1997
1111 Page 3
provided in Section 1123.02 Subd.1.c.
i. No day care center or group nursery shall be permitted where the distance from
the property line for the day care center or group nursery to a premise requiring a
liquor license, as provided in Section 502 of the Municipal Code, or a license for
an adult establishment, as provided in Section 513 of the Municipal Code, is five
hundred (500) feet or less, except that the 500 foot requirement shall not apply to
any liquor establishment receiving at least sixty percent of its annual gross sales
revenue from the sale of food.
SECTION 5. Section 1112.04 (conditional uses in the B-1 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 5 as follows:
Subd. 5: Day care center, group nursery: provided that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
• that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
g, All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
h. The distance between any outdoor play yard for a day care center or group nursery
and the Highway 10 right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 200 feet. except as
provided in Section 1123.02 Subd.1.c.
i. No day care center or group nursery shall be permitted where the distance from
the property line for the day care center or group nursery to a premise requiring a
liquor license, as provided in Section 502 of the Municipal Code, or a license for
an adult establishment, as provided in Section 513 of the Municipal Code, is five
hundred (500) feet or less, except that the 500 foot requirement shall not apply to
any liquor establishment receiving at least sixty percent of its annual gross sales
revenue from the sale of food.
• SECTION 6. Section 1113.04 (conditional uses in the B-2 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 6 as follows:
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#2
March 10, 1997
Page 4 •
Subd. 6: Day care center, group nursery: provided that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
g_ All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
h. The distance between any outdoor play yard for a day care center or group nursery
and the Highway 10 right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 200 feet, except as
provided in Section 1123.02 Subd.1.c. •
i. No day care center or group nursery shall be permitted where the distance from
the property line for the day care center or group nursery to a premise requiring a
liquor license, as provided in Section 502 of the Municipal Code, or a license for
an adult establishment, as provided in Section 513 of the Municipal Code, is five
hundred (500) feet or less, except that the 500 foot requirement shall not apply to
any liquor establishment receiving at least sixty percent of its annual gross sales
revenue from the sale of food.
SECTION 7. Section 1114.04 (conditional uses in the B-3 District)is hereby amended to
add Subd. 9 as follows:
Subd. 9: Day care center, group nursery: provided that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
•
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Ordinance No. 595 - Option#2
March 10, 1997
• Page 5
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
h. The distance between any outdoor play yard for a day care center or group nursery
and the Highway 10 right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 200 feet, except as
provided in Section 1123.02 Subd.l.c.
i. No day care center or group nursery shall be permitted where the distance from
the property line for the day care center or group nursery to a premise requiring a
liquor license, as provided in Section 502 of the Municipal Code, or a license for
an adult establishment, as provided in Section 513 of the Municipal Code, is five
hundred (500) feet or less, except that the 500 foot requirement shall not apply to
any liquor establishment receiving at least sixty percent of its annual gross sales
revenue from the sale of food.
SECTION 8. Section 1115.04 (conditional uses in the B-4 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 6 as follows:
i
Subd. 6: Day care center, group nursery: provided that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
h. The distance between any outdoor play yard for a day care center or group nursery
and the Highway 10 right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 200 feet, except as
provided in Section 1123.02 Subd.1.c.
. i. No day care center or group nursery shall be permitted where the distance from
the property line for the day care center or group nursery to a premise requiring a
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#2
March 10, 1997
Page 6 •
liquor license, as provided in Section 502 of the Municipal Code, or a license for
an adult establishment, as provided in Section 513 of the Municipal Code, is five
hundred(500) feet or less, except that the 500 foot requirement shall not apply to
any liquor establishment receiving at least sixty percent of its annual gross sales
revenue from the sale of food.
SECTION 9. Section 1116.04 (conditional uses in the I-1 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 21 as follows:
Subd. 21: Day care center, group nursery: provided that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
h. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title. •
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
h. The distance between any outdoor play yard for a day care center or group nursery
and the Highway 10 right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 200 feet, except as
provided in Section 1123.02 Subd.1.c.
i. No day care center or group nursery shall be permitted where the distance from
the property line for the day care center or group nursery to a premise requiring a
liquor license, as provided in Section 502 of the Municipal Code, or a license for
an adult establishment, as provided in Section 513 of the Municipal Code, is five
hundred (500) feet or less, except that the 500 foot requirement shall not apply to
any liquor establishment receiving at least sixty percent of its annual gross sales
revenue from the sale of food.
SECTION 10. Section 1123.02 Subd. 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 1. Continuance of Use:
(a) General: Any structure or use lawfully existing prior to a revision to this Code or
•
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#2
March 10, 1997
• Page 7
a change in a zoning district designation which makes the structure or use
nonconforming shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and in the
manner of operation existing upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or
subsequently amended.
(b) Parking Areas for Non-Residential Uses, Allowed by Conditional Use Permit, in
the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 Districts: Parking areas in existence as of the date
of enactment of this ordinance, and having setbacks which are non-conforming
with respect to setback requirements stated in Section 1104.01 Subd. 4, may
continue in use and may be resurfaced and restriped, and may be reconstructed or
replaced using setbacks which conform to the ordinance in effect at the time of
original construction, except that, a parking lot being reconstructed or replaced
shall be made conforming to the current setback requirements in effect at the time
of reconstruction or replacement if feasible without reducing the required number
of parking spaces. The feasibility of meeting the current setback requirements shall
be determined by the Director of Community Development.
(c) Day Care Centers and Group Nurseries: Day care centers and group nurseries in
4111 existence as of the date of the enactment of Ordinance 595, having a play yard less
than 200 feet from the Highway 10 right-of-way line, shall not be considered a
non-conforming use, and any structure or play yard on the premises may be
reconstructed, expanded or enlarged as long as the setback of the play yard from
the Highway 10 right-of-way line is not made less by the reconstruction, expansion
or enlargement.
SECTION 11. EF'F'ECTIVE DATE: This ordinance goes into effect upon adoption of the
City Council and 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of
, 1997.
Duane McCarty, Mayor
ATTEST:
1111 Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#2
March 10, 1997
Page8
1111
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert Long, City Attorney
N:\DATA\USERSTAMS\SHARDSPECPROJ\SP013.97\DAYCARE.OR2
S
S
ORDINANCE NO. 595 (Option #3)
• CTTY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE ADDING DAY CARE CENTERS AND GROUP NURSERIES AS A
CONDITIONAL USE INT.RE B-1, B-2, 13-3, B-4,AND I-1 ZONING DISTRICTS;
PLANNING CASE NO. SP-013-97
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1102.02, Subd. 23 and 24 are amended to read as follows:
Subd. 23. Day Care Center; Group Nursery: A service provided to the public hi which children of
school or preschool age are cart('fur during established businvss-huurs. facility for the care and
supervision of more than ten(10) preschool and school age children during established business
hours for periods of less than 24 hours per day, and which is licensed and approved by the State
of Minnesota. Also includes preschools and nursery schools.
Subd. 24. Day Care, Home: - •• ;1 • • ; - , • • .• .• • :• - •
III • •• d • • •• •- • • • • • • • • 1 : . 91 • •• 1 •• . The use of
0 residence for the care of ten(10) or fewer preschool and school age children during established
business hours for less than 24 hours per day, and which is licensed and approved by the State of
Minnesota.
SECTION 2: Section 1102.02 is amended to add the following definition as a subdivision,
placed in alphabetical order, and the remaining subdivisions in Section 1102.02 being renumbered
accordingly.
Subd. XX. Day Care, Group Family: The use of residence for the care of fourteen(14) or fewer
preschool and school age children during established business hours for less than 24 hours per
day, and which is licensed and approved by the State of Minnesota.
SECTION 3. Section 1107.05 Subd. 2. is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Day care center, group nursery; provided;that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#3
March 10, 1997
Page 2 •
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
g. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
SECTION 4. Section 1110.04 Subd. 7. is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 7. Day care center, group nursery; provided;that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions110
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
g. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
SECTION 5. Section 1112.04 (conditional uses in the B-1 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 5 as follows:
Subd. 5: Day care center, group nursery; provided that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions •
as specified by the City Council.
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#3
March 10, 1997
• Page 3
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
SECTION 6. Section 1113.04 (conditional uses in the B-2 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 6 as follows:
Subd. 6: Day care center, group nursery; provided that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
1111 c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
SECTION 7. Section 1114.04 (conditional uses in the B-3 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 9 as follows:
Subd. 9: Day care center, group nursery; provided that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
• that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
as specified by the City Council.
Ordinance No. 595 -Option#3
March 10, 1997
Page 4
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
g All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
SECTION 8. Section 1115.04 (conditional uses in the B-4 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 6 as follows:
Subd. 6: Day care center, group nursery: provided that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions •
as specified by the City Council.
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
f. The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
SECTION 9. Section 1116.04 (conditional uses in the I-1 District) is hereby amended to
add Subd. 21 as follows:
Subd. 21: Day care center, group nursery: provided that:
a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and
that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions
4110
as specified by the City Council.
Ordinance No. 595-Option#3
March 10, 1997
• Page 5
d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter
1121 of this Title.
e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 1122 of this Title.
The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an serial or
collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code.
SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance goes into effect upon adoption of the
City Council and 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of
, 1997.
•
Duane McCarty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert Long, City Attorney
• N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROMP013.97\DAYCARE.ORD
Item No. I I
Staff Report No. 9 7 -oU//G
Meeting Date: March 24, 1997
Type of Business: CB
•
WK:Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson,Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a minor subdivision (lot split) for Carol
Hoopingarner at 8344 Groveland Road; Planning Case No. 474-97
Date of Report: March 21, 1997
Summary:
The applicant, Carol Hoopingarner, is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to split her
property located at 8344 Groveland Road into two lots, one fronting Groveland and the other
fronting Knollwood Drive. The City's subdivision regulations allow for approval of a surveyor's
certificate in these situations. (A copy of the surveyor's certificate showing the proposed lot split
is attached.) This property is a through lot that fronts both Knollwood Drive and Groveland
Road with the applicant's home on the portion of the lot fronting Groveland. The lot is L-shaped
. with an additional 30 feet of land attached along the south side for a distance of 211 feet from the
southeast corner. The applicant proposes to split the lot at a point approximately 30 feet off
center to the west. The Planning Commission, at their meeting on March 5, 1997, recommended
approval of this request with stipulations. Refer to the attached Planning Commission resolution.
Analysis:
The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, which requires a minimum street frontage
of 75 feet and lot area of 11,000 square feet. The applicant's lot is 100 feet wide at Knollwood
Drive and 130 feet wide at Groveland Road. The lot fronting Knollwood would be 18,067 square
feet and the remainder fronting Groveland would be 30, 695 square feet. Both lots would
conform to the Zoning Code's dimensional requirements. Ms. Hoopingarner's lot is one of the
last"through lots" in the City that can be split in this fashion.
Staff is requesting that the applicant submit the following prior to Council action on this item:
(1) revised Certificate and Plat of Survey that shows the drainage and utility easements to be
dedicated to the City as a result of this lot split with a notation on the survey indicating
that a separate document has been recorded with Ramsey County which conveys the
easements to the City, and
(2) document executed by the applicant dedicating the utility and drainage easements to the
IIICity, which is acceptable to the City Attorney as to form.
.
City of Mounds View Staff Report
March 21, 1997
Page 2
The applicant has paid the park dedication fee of$100 as required by Section 1204.02 of the
Municipal Code. The surveyor has set iron monuments at the northeast and southeast corners of •
Parcel B, where the new lot line is to be established. The easement document has been prepared
and is under review by the City Attorney's office. With completion of item#2 above, the
applicant will have provided drainage and utility easements as required by the City's Subdivision
Regulations.
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution 5096 approving the minor subdivision of 8344 Groveland for Ms. Carol
Hoopingarner with stipulations. (We expect that the easements will be executed by the City
Council meeting on March 24. If the easements have not been executed, however, staff
recommends that this item be continued to your April 14 meeting.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
cc: Carol Hoopingarner, 8344 Groveland Road
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\474-97\474-97CC.RPT
•
RESOLUTION NO. 5096
• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR
CAROL HOOPINGARNER, OWNER OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
8344 GROVELAND ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE 474-97
WHEREAS,Ms. Carol Hoopingarner,as owner of 8344 Groveland Road,property zoned
R-!, Single Family Residential,has requested approval of a minor subdivision that will split the lot
into two lots;and
WHEREAS,the legal description of 8344 Groveland Road is currently as follows:
THE SOUTH 100 FEET OF THE NORTH 200 FEET OF LOT 43,AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION NO. 89, RAMSEY COUNTY, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS,
and
THE NORTH 30 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CLARA FORD ADDITION,
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS
• WHEREAS, the two lots created by this minor subdivision, Lot A(fronting Groveland
Road) and Lot B (fronting Knollwood Drive) can be legally described as follows:
Tract A:
THE S 100 FT OF THE N 200 FT OF LOT 43,AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89,
RAMSEY CO., EXCEPT THE W 210 FT OF SAID PROPERTY,
and
THE N 30 FT OF LOT 1, BLK 1, CLARA FORD ADDITION,ALL SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD
Tract B:
THE W 210 FT OF THE S 100 FT OF THE N 200 FT OF LOT 43,AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION NO. 89, RAMSEY CO., SUBJECT TO THE ROAD, EASEMENTS
AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD
WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and
determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1201, 1202, 1104 and 1204 of the municipal
Code; and
• WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted a Surveyor's Certificate showing the minor
subdivision; and
City Council Resolution No. 5049
December 16, 1996
Page 2
WHEREAS,the applicant has provided the City with drainage and utility easement •
documents for 8344 Groveland Road; and
WHEREAS,the applicant has paid a park dedication fee of$100 per Code requirements in
Section 1204.02; and,
WHEREAS,the iron monuments have been set at the interior lot corners on the north and
south end of the new property line between Tract A and Tract B by Comstock and Davis,Inc.,the
applicant's surveyor.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
recommends approval of the minor subdivision request from Carol Hoopingarner,as owner of
8344 Groveland Road, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the revised
Certificate and Plat of Survey and the drainage and utility easement document with
Ramsey County within sixty(60) days of final adoption, and present proof of such
recording to the City of Mounds View, or this approval shall be null and void.
Adopted this 24th day of March, 1997. •
Duane McCarty,Mayor
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\USERS\DAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES1474-97\5096.RES
110
' CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
' PLANNING APPLICATION • j-',}
APPLICANT: C ct R c /� , ' `�" 7 `1' ° o.3
i
Z i .C.ii I , ri 5 k i)t/'T, ,-.,(3t e,r-c cf R n s 9 Phone -7 SG-- .S S-i OA)
v
ADDRESS: ` ' 3 `/ V GRouE. ict4 ..l RoA4
• Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code r1 �i � '' �" `'' F1 u
Interest in Property (check appropriate box): 5 S o s_
a Owner of Property
❑ Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager
❑ Agreement to Purchase
❑ Other (explain) •
Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final C:.
�(ac5ort of this request
FROPTy INVOLVED:
Address/General Location 3 / `/ G 2j ,, c l k el d R G( o
-� V .1a.S U 1_C-) lnnrllJ�cc
Legal Description or Property Identification Number o t — 3o — , — t — 0 I 0 (/
Legal Owner: Name/Address C',g a o 1 ►'y .r ; r { ', 5 k ) )A'D O
� 1>• y GrrZ ouf 14 �; ,��, �2 »cn
d R,o ., ti o u., J s 1/: , ii LI
Present Use (check appropriate box): S S J J=—
❑ UndeveiopedNacant
,. Single Family Dwelling
III ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling_
❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) _
❑ Business/Commercal Establishment
❑ Industria.{ Establishment
❑ Other (explain)
Property Cassincatian: [ Abstract •
Tarrens
RECUEST: 1
_3.--__,=\, ‘-.c .
*Please note: Applicant may be rescansible for accaicnai fees associates with the review •this request
HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT AAE TRUE C",.."_<-12 )
Signature x.,
Rezoning '+ +r*n::
SCA/acre.minimum$200.maximturt $1,000 Paris Fund Dedication Fee
Variance R-1 •a R-2-STS.ail others$200
Cane bone i Use Permit Dene Paid
+q-1 �-2•r,5,ail others=CO Receipt Number
Cade Appeal vs
DeveioaJSite P!an Review Si 00/acre.minimums 100.maximum SSW
)<Minor Subdivision Si c0 Tata! Fees Paid A.1-0•o V
Maior Subdivision a Dae Paid / - i- 9'I
5250 plus S2-0 deocsit Receipt Number
C:.mo. Plan Amendment S2CC `5.-V7 FS
• 'Nebula Macedon Permit S50 oius ceocsit beterminea by Stat
'Netiano Surfer Permit Pse Paid
Si 0
S:0 Cate Paid
Panning Sign
PUO Receipt Number
P,JO Amendment SIM
Data of Ina' ac-.;on
APPRCVED 17 DENIED 77 TABLED
Date /'- /- 9 7 Planning Case No. `f 7'7'- 9
Admin.Ac,runt Na. ), I w-
.
– 3
_ _ CO . . -- - . . . . • • —NORTH 001
r I
8490
3
rn ��i 8491 8494 488493 N + N } 49C 8499 m
IIt /N N N
gi
j848 8485 8484 8489 8480 8481 co N
I 8484
0
8480 8477 8480 8479 8470 8471
8462 8461 8468 8469 8474 8469 8465 8470 8474
S ,� 8470 8460 - 8461 8460
345: 8457 M 8454 8461 8460 8463 8456 8461 8460/ 8451 8456'
cc
8454 8471- AVE NE 8455 8450 8459 8450 8455 8440 8441 0
8444 8441 8442 8449 - 8440 8445 8444
8432W 8444
8434 8431 8436 w 8439 8438 8431 Q 8431
8421 8425 8430 8424 8434
8430
8422 cc 8429 8432 l 8425
8412 8411 8421 8419
8423 8426 8400
8415 8420
8402 a 8401 8418 -8419 8419 8420 8409 8392
8392 8391 8406 8407 8410 8415 8414 4:401/x„, co 8384 8401 8406 f
1 f
8390 8389 8394 8403 8408 8409 8408 :397 mr1 8378 8389 4
8386 8391 84061 840 8398 R LAN t,��a 8379 8380
8387 8.380 :391 8 337c
8.380 3 8385 / 8387 838 8381 8378 M m 836. 8365 8372 i
8370 15 8371 8374 8383 8 2 8371 8368 •9 00 8360 8355 8368 j
8368
8371 ;368 8351 8.3 = ;• 8354 8345 8.364
8360 8360 Y 8359 :360 \�\ 8346 - 8340
8350 8347 3 \\\\ 8335 .
83551 83401 584 8341 8342 8325 8312
8340 8335 8 4 CI 8339 8334
8345 p :•35 8332 8315 8300
8330 8335 8336 8325 833# 0 8333 I 8330 8333 8322
8305 8290
8320 8325 8316 8315 8322 O 8325 8300 c 8285 8280
8310 /8315 8311 8308 Y 831 ' 8275 8270
8300 /8305 8312 8297 8298 8301 GROV ELAND a 8265 8260 cc
8280 PARK
;284 8285 8290 8289 _ 8285 PF 8255 8250
8281 8250 8261 n 'n ^ 8240 1
:280 8275 5 ;t ao .. .r
Z 8270 8265 8230 8241 co N CV
N N N 8230 I
270 N 8265 r--. ARDAN
260 6 8255 8248 Ca (iIo I a o _ 'j n I - N �_ 2 0 c• 2c o0 0
Z 0.1 a) rn rn w co co 8244 0"o co °D co CO N N N N 8220
250 0 8245/ a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
240 PLEA 8233 82281(/ 8245 • 8206 8227 8210
N 8202 in N PC71 . 8200
8213 8210 8217
8201 8198 8205 N N N N
819:_
Zoning Map Case No. 474-97
11111
8344 Groveland Road N A
Applicant: Carol Hoopmgarner
.r
•
•
January 21 , 1997 AJ
Reee'�pd
M,ounas\I
Mr. Jim Erickson
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Dear Mr. Erickson:
At this time I am presenting you with the required papers
along with my request to the Mounds View City Council for
permission for a minor subdivision . This will divide a
section of my lot which now runs from Groveland Road to
4111 Knollwood into 2 lots. The lot facing Groveland will contain
the present building house and garage and the lot to be
created will be an undeveloped lot facing Knollwood .
If further information is needed, please contact me at either
my office 786-5581 or at my home 784-6003 .
Sincerely,
Carol M . ( Zielinski ) Hoopingarner
8344 Groveland Road
Mounds View, MN 55112
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 494-97
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 411
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR CAROL HOOPINGARNER, 8344 GROVELAND ROAD
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 474-97
WHEREAS, Ms. Carol Hoopingarner has requested approval for a minor subdivision
dividing her property at 8344 Groveland Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential,
legally described as follows:
THE SOUTH 100 FEET OF THE NORTH 200 FEET OF LOT 43,AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION NO. 89, RAMSEY COUNTY, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS,
and
THE NORTH 30 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CLARA FORD ADDITION,
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS
WHEREAS, the two lots created by this minor subdivision, Lot A(fronting Groveland
Road) and Lot B (fronting Knollwood Drive) can be legally described as follows:
Lot A:
THE S 100 FT OF THE N 200 FT OF LOT 43,AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89,
RAMSEY CO., EXCEPT THE W 210 FT OF SAID PROPERTY,
and
THE N 30 FT OF LOT 1, BL%1, CLARA FORD ADDITION,ALL SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD
Lot B:
THE W 210 FT OF THE S 100 FT OF THE N 200 FT OF LOT 43, AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION NO. 89, RAMSEY CO., SUBJECT TO THE ROAD, EASEMENTS
AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor
subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1201, 1202, 1104 and
1204 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate and Plat of Survey for the above
described property.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 494-97
March 5, 1997
• Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the minor subdivision request made by Carol Hoopingamer, 8344
Groveland Road, contingent upon the following:
1. Prior to City Council action on this request, the applicant shall provide the following:
a. A revised Certificate and Plat of Survey adding a note stating "Utility and
drainage easements have been dedicated by a separate recorded document
dated , 1997 and recorded with Ramsey County on
, 1997. "
b. A document dedicating the utility and drainage easements to the City,
which is acceptable to the City Attorney as to form, and has been executed
by the applicant.
c. Payment of a park dedication fee in the amount of$100 per Code
requirements in Section 1204.02.
• 2. Prior to the signature of the Mayor on the Certificate and Plat of Survey, the
applicant shall arrange to have iron monuments buried at the proposed interior lot
corners.
3. The applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the Certificate
and Plat of Survey and the drainage and utility easement document with Ramsey
County within sixty(60) days of final adoption, and present proof of such
recording to the City of Mounds View, or this approval shall be null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 5th day of March, 1997
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
• N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\474-97\8344PC.RES
Item No. G
Staff Report No. 1 12 !—
Meeting Date: March 24, 1997
Type of Business: CB
• WK•Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:ConsentAgenda;CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson,Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Development Review and Wetland Alteration
Permit for ZEP Manufacturing at 8490 Coral Sea Street;
Planning Case No. 475-97
Date of Report: March 20, 1997
Summary:
The applicant, Benson-Orth Associates, has applied for a development review and wetland
alteration permit to construct a 22,300 square foot branch sales office and warehouse at 8490
Coral Sea Street. The applicant represents ZEP Manufacturing, a national company specializing
in the manufacture and sale of janitorial, sanitation and maintenance chemicals. This facility
would serve as a sales support and distribution warehouse. No manufacturing or packaging
• would be done here.
The building would consist of 5,950 square feet of office space(which includes 2,500 square feet
of mezzanine space) and 19,320 square feet of warehouse space. ZEP Manufacturing currently
has a facility operating in Roseville, with thirteen on site employees supporting approximately 50
sales reps in the Twin Cities and surrounding areas. Staff has spoken with a representative of the
Roseville Community Development Department who was unaware of any problems associated
with the business.
The site is currently zoned I-1, Industrial District, which allows this use. This parcel is
undeveloped with the western edge of the property in wetland, and the remaining area covered by
dense tree cover. There is an additional, small wetland in the northeast corner of the site.
Discussion:
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.
• • Wetland Alteration Permit: Section 1010.08 states that a wetland alteration permit is
needed whenever digging, draining, filling or any other alterations occur within the
Wetland Zoning District, which includes the wetland itself and the 100-foot buffer.
City of Mounds View Staff Report 4
475-97:Zep Manufacturing
March 21, 1997
Page 2
Dimensional Requirements:
Required Provided Met?
Lot Area: 1 acre 3.94 acres Yes
Building Height: 5 45 feet 32 feet Yes
Building Setbacks
•Front (Coral Sea St.): 40 feet 120 feet Yes
• Side (Co. Rd. J): 30 feet 40 feet Yes
• Side (interior): 20 feet 150 feet Yes
• Rear: 40 feet 210+feet Yes
Parking Lot Setbacks
•Front (Coral Sea St.): 40 feet 40 feet Yes
• Side (Co. Rd. J): 5 feet 60 feet Yes
• Side (interior): 5 feet 40 feet Yes
Drainage, Wetland Considerations and Wetland Alteration Permit:
This lot was platted as part of the Northstar Industrial Park 2nd Addition. At the time of platting,
a comprehensive drainage plan was prepared which identified the ponding requirements for Lots
1, 2 and 3. The major wetland along the western boundary of these lots was also delineated at
that time. The applicant is proposing a drainage system which coordinates with the earlier plan. A
two-stage storm water detention pond will be built in the southwest corner of the lot, to handle
the runoff from the site and to improve the quality of the water entering the wetland. The water
detention pond is located in the 100-foot buffer area surrounding the wetland. This is a very
typical situation, since detention ponds are usually placed close to the wetland to provide filtering
of runoff before it reaches the wetland. The ponds will revegetate with native vegetation and are
not considered disruptive to the wetland.
As part of the review of this application, representatives from both Rice Creek Watershed District
and SEH(City Engineer) have walked the site and verified the wetland delineation. During the
field check, a small, isolated wetland (approximately 7400 square feet in size) was discovered in
the northeast corner of the lot. This wetland was located after the applicant had completed all of
their site planning, which shows a portion of the parking lot in the same location. It does not
appear on the City's wetland zoning district maps. Because of the small size and isolated nature
of the wetland, it is somewhat limited in value. The applicant is proposing to remove this wetland
and provide mitigation by expanding their detention pond and reserving some upland buffer area,
according to standards set by Rice Creek Watershed District. The Planning Commission agreed
that removal and mitigation of this wetland was the most practical approach to the situation,
although the final design solution was not available at the time of their review. (The Planning
Commission did not feel it was desireable to relocate the building and parking lot further to the
south because it would reduce the buffer along the south property line.) They indicated whatever
solution was acceptable to RCWD was also acceptable to the Planning Commission. The •
applicants have filed a concurrent permit application with RCWD for this project. It will be heard
by their board on March 26. RCWD staff will be providing comments and their recommendation
City of Mounds View Staff Report
475-97:Zep Manufacturing
March 21, 1997
Page 3
• on the applicant's proposal to us prior to the Council meeting on March 24. Feedback received
thus far from Rice Creek indicates that the applicant will meet all of the district's requirements
and that the applicant's stormwater detention and wetland mitigation efforts will be acceptable.
Staff has included a condition that requires the applicant to obtain approval for a permit from
RCWD prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit.
Because the applicant will be grading in the 100-foot buffer surrounding the wetland to install the
ponding system, a City wetland alteration permit is needed. In addition, the permit also becomes
necessary because a small portion of the parking lot is in the buffer area as well. The fact that the
parking lot encroaches into the wetland triggers the need for Council to review the alteration
permit. The impact of this encroachment is minimal. The pavement serves to direct the flow of
run-off away from the wetland and into the detention ponds while the detention ponds will serve
to improve the quality of the water that enters the wetland.
Parking
ZEP Manufacturing requested and received from the Planning Commission a variance in the
parking ratios required for the office and warehouse space in this development. The parking
ratios as required in the City Code are much higher than is typical. Using the current ratios, the
amount of parking that would have been required for this site would have been:
Warehouse: 19,325 sq.ft. divided by 500 + 8 spaces=38.65 + 8 = 47 spaces
Office: 5,950 sq.ft. divided by 175 +3 spaces=39.67+3 = 37 spaces
Total: 84 spaces
The Planning Commission approved alternative ratios that reduced the amount of parking
required on the site as follows:
Warehouse: 1 space per 1,000 square feet warehouse floor area = 19 spaces
Office: 1 space per 250 square feet of office area = 24 spaces
Total: 43 spaces
The applicant, on the site plan dated March 20, 1997, shows parking in this amount. The
applicant has also demonstrated sufficient area is available to build an additional 40 parking
spaces. The resolution of approval allows the City to require that this parking be built if there is a
change in use which triggers a higher parking demand, or if day-to-day operations results in
parking problems.
•
City of Mounds View Staff Report
475-97:Zep Manufacturing
March 21, 1997
Page 4
Recommendation: •
The Planning Commission by a 7 to 0 vote and Staff recommend approval of Resolution No.
5097, a resolution approving the Development Review for ZEP Manufacturing with stipulations.
Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 5103, a resolution approving the Wetland
Alteration Permit for this project with stipulations.
James Ericson, Planning Associate
cc: Mike Munson, Benson-Orth
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DE VCASES\475-97\ZEP-C C.RPT
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW. -
PZANNING APPLICATION
APPLICANT: BENSON-ORTH ASSOCIATES, INC. 545-8826
Phone
ADDRESS: 14001 RIDGEDALE DRIVE, SUITE 320, MINNETONKA, MN 55305
11111
Street Address, City, State, and Zp Cade
Interest in Property (check appropriate box):
❑ Owner of Property
❑ Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager
I 1 Agreement to Purchase
❑ Other (explain)
Oocsunentery evidence at applicants interest in the property may be required before final Gay ac.son of this request
PROPERTY INVOLVED:
Address/Genera! Location SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 3 AND WEST OF CORAL SEA STREET
•
Legal Description or Property Identification NumberLOT 2, BLOCK 1, NORTHSTAR
INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION
Legal Owner: Name/Address WATSON INVESTME.N1S, INC. , 3UJ EXCELSIOR BLVD.
SUITE 420, MINNEAPULIS, MN 55416-46/b
Present Use (check appropriate box):
Undeveicped/Vacnt
❑ Single Family Dwelling
- ».• _. Q .__ DupleaTwo_Family Dwelling _
�-..,..�:..-_.-
❑ Multi-Family (Na. of Units r )
❑ Business/Commerc'ai Establishment
• Industrial Establishment
Q Other (explain)
Property Classification: Q Abstract 0 Torrens •
RECUEST: APPROVAL TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
*P!ease note: Acelicant may be resrcnsibie for a_ccidcnal fees associated with the review at this r est
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE AECVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE 4///7 4 . 46i
Signature
Rezoning =CC/ac.-a,minimum WCC.crtgainitan ST.= Perk Fend Oeaiestion Fee 4 /A
Variance 1 R-1 b R-2-S75.ail others=00 Oahe Paid 200
Conditioned Use Permit R-1 to R-2-575,ail others=CO Receipt Number
Cade Appeal ST5
Deveiao lSrte Pian Review S100/aces. minimum100.maximum 5500 Tataf Fees Paid 260 .7_
Minor Subdivision S1 51 '�
Ossa paid i -a 7 - 9 7
Maior Subdivision =SO pits Sc50 deposit Receipt Number 5:;3.53
C.:mp. ?!an Amendment SZCO
. Wedano Alteration Permit 550 plus deccsd min
deteres by Staff
WeilanAdditional Fee Paid
Weiland Surfer Permit
Si C Oona Paid
?!arming Sign 550 Receipt Number • ,
PJO 53.E
PUO Amendment 5150 Date cif in final con
L ,S .- APPRCVEJ L; 08,41008,410 17 1AOI� C:
'7
Dare 1 -.►1+"7- of 7 Panning Casa Na. . 61 7 Admin.Ac.:rurre No.
BLAINE
•
COUNTY ROAD I • . . . — —
SYSCO \;
1,7 \ \ \8490 III
Is
. \\\ \\ t
8450
•
-::::::::.:1:•:•:•:•:-2.:::-
:':::::::::;::7;:::::.:f:
----- MIDWEST N
'—' 8400
P -:::
PF = BLAINE
o
8z90 L
WETLANDS\\\sat
Ahhb, 82ND LANE NE
DRIVING RANGE T
411
o
co
N
I
- THE /BRIDGES .•-• GOLF COURSE
CRP
VP
8237 • �G
A
�� � CI C ^ ° A 7 I Y1�8
...Mr. N NNNN N N
..... ......
LAPORT DR I
/ crizi- O N I a N, N 101 N lm -
8140 NN -N N N N N N N N 1-2.1
-
Ill
Zoning Map Case No. 475-97
Nn
8490 Coral Sea Street
Applicant: Benson-Orth Associates, Inc. NM
rrcum :Gtr tNU/1"I- INT 404 609 9729 1997.01-24 11:42 4038 P.02/03
zep •
_______
ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY
111110
1310 Seaboard Industrial Boulevard. N.W.
Post Office Box 2015
Atlanta. Georgis 30301
(404)382-1680
Ms . Pamela Sheldon January 23 , 1997
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Dear Ms . Sheldon,
Mike Monson of Benson-Orth and I thank you for the opportunity t
meet with you yesterday to discuss our plans to develop a branch
sales office and warehouse in the North Star Industrial Park.
You were very helpful in explaining the Development Review and
Approval process . I would like to introduce Zep to you and
explain the activities that will take place in our new facility.
Zep Manufacturing is a sixty year old company headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. We are a division of National Service
Industries, a two billion dollar company listed on the New York
Stock Exchange. Zep has over fifty branch and five manufacturing
410
locations throughout the U.S. and Canada, employing over 2 , 000
sales and support personnel.
Our business is the manufacture and sale of specialty janitorial,
sanitation, and maintenance chemicals for our hospitality, _
institutional, and manufacturing customers . We also sell a
complete line of cleaning and maintenance, equipment. Our
chemical products are available as powders, licuids, and
aerosols . They are packaged in cases of aerosols, quart and
gallon bottles, seven gallon pails, 55 gallon drums, and 220
gallon reusable tote tanks . Most of the liquid products are
water based soaps and sanitizers, but we also provide many
solvent based degreasers and cleaners . Our products are designed
to be strong and effective . Some are flammable and some are
corrosive .
We recognize the importance of operating our business correctly
and responsibly. Our main plant in Atlanta makes approximately
805k of cur production in 700 , 000 square feet of manufacturing and
warehousing facilities. This facility is ISO 9001 c.r'-i =ied and
has won the State of Georgia Environmental Award for the last
four years. The other manufacturing facilities will become Iso
certified this Spring.
We work in a partnering relationship with our insurance and loss
4111
prevention consultant, Alexander & Alexander, and our insurance
carrier, IRI, to continually evaluate and implement the latest
and most effective fire and loss protection methods and
equipment at all of our facilities . We ensure that all new
First in
Maintenance Products
.1?!,:c:t' ^: `.!. ,- _ ._")r t.`.,n ,,,.,,C.T^![c ie,^
FROM :ZEP ENG/MAINT 404 60S 9729 7497.01-24 11:48 #038 P.03/03 _
facilities, such as this one, will be in full compliance with all
NFPA and NEC code requirements . We also make certain that we
fully protect the environment.
We have had a branch in the Twin Cities since 1970 and have been
at 2031 Oakcrest Ave. in Roseville since 1980 . The current
facility has 11, 600 square feet of warehouse and 1, 800 of
offices . There are seven administrative and six warehouse
employees supporting approximately thirty sales reps in the Twin
Cities area and an additional twenty reps in the surrounding
areas . This new facility will have approximately 18 , 300 square
feet of warehouse and 6, 000 of offices and sales training areas .
The new facility we are proposing will be solely a sales support
and distribution warehouse for our customers in Minnesota and the
Dakotas . There will be no manufacturing or packaging done at
this facility. All environmental and fire protection codes will
be fully met. We have designed separate cutoff rooms for the
safe storage of the aerosols and combustible/flammable liquids .
I hope this gives you a helpful understanding cf our plans _ if
you have any questions, please give me a call at 404-605-8842 .
We look forward to working closely with you, the Fire Marshall,
and others to ' ensure that this project meets everyone ' s
expectations .
yours,ours 4110
.
Steve Avary
Director of Engineering
RESOLUTION 5097
III CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR BENSON ORTH
ASSOCIATES,REPRESENTING ZEP MANUFACTURINGING;
PLANNING CASE 475-97
WHEREAS,Benson-Orth Associates has requested City approval to construct a 22,300
square foot, one-story branch sales office and warehouse at 8490 Coral Sea Street, which property
is legally described as:
LOT 1,BLK 1,NORTHSTAR INDUSTRIAL PARK,2ND ADDITION
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 City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this
. development proposal:
1. Planning Application dated January 27, 1997
2. Zoning Map
3. Letter from ZEP Manufacturing dated January 23, 1997
4. Site, landscape and drainage plans
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposal is in conformance with all
applicable requirements of Chapter 1116,Industrial District, of the Mounds View Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made findings that the application from Benson-Orth
Associates meets the dimensional requirements as stated below:
Required Provided Met/Not Met
Lot Area: 1 acre 3.94 acres Met
Building Height: s 45 feet 32 feet Met
Building Setbacks
Front(Coral Sea St.): 40 feet 120 Feet Met
Side(Co. Rd. J): 30 Feet 40 Feet Met
Side(interior) 20 Feet 150 Feet Met
Rear: 40 feet 210+Feet Met
Planning Commission Resolution No.496-97
March 5, 1997
Page 21111
Parking Lot Setbacks
Front(Coral Sea St.): 40 Feet 40 feet Met
Side (Co. Rd. J): 5 feet 60 Feet Met
Side(interior): 5 Feet 40 Feet Met
Parking 87 spaces 43 spaces (1)
(1) A variance in parking ratios to allow a reduction to 43 spaces was granted by the Planning
Commission in Resolution No.499-97. Approval of this development review is contingent
upon approval of this variance.
WHEREAS,the City Council does hereby find that the landscape plan as proposed
satisfies the requirements of the Code as stated below:
The landscaping proposed for this site has been reviewed by the City Forester, who has
recommended changing one of the tree types(Honeylocust Sunburst)for a more climate-
appropriate species (Honeylocust Shademaster). The other landscaping is acceptable.
Much of the existing tree cover will be retained to provide a full screen from both County
Road J and Coral Sea Street. Most of the rear elevation will also be screened from any
future park developments on adjacent land.
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plan for this site and has found it
acceptable and consistent with the Master Drainage Plan previously approved by the City Council
and Rice Creek Watershed District;and,
WHEREAS,the Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the proposed drainage and
ponding plans, and the proposal for wetland mitigation; and,
WHEREAS, the City Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plans and finds the layout meets
Fire Department requirements for emergency vehicle access; and,
WHEREAS, the approximately 40 square feet of signage indicated on the site plans is
within the 100 square feet allowed by the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves
the Development Review request made by Benson-Orth Associates for ZEP Manufacturing,
contingent upon the following:
1. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits,the applicant shall enter into a
Development Agreement with the City of Mounds View.
2. The granting of this development review is contingent upon the granting of a wetland
alteration permit from the City and a permit from Rice Creek Watershed District and shall
be null and void if these approvals are not received within 120 days from the date on which
the City Council acts to grant this development review. In no event shall any building or
grading permits be issued until such time as these approvals are obtained.
Resolution 5097
411 Development Review,ZEP Manufacturing
March 24, 1997
Page 3
3. Prior to obtaining any building permits or grading permits,the applicant shall install
protective fencing around those areas where trees are to be retained. The area shall be of
sufficient width so as to protect the trees' root systems. The installation of fencing shall be
supervised by the City Forester to assure its effectiveness. The use of heavy equipment or
construction activity shall be prohibited in these areas, and the property owner/developer
shall be responsible for making certain these restrictions are enforced.
4. The applicant shall install and maintain erosion control measures on the site throughout the
construction period, in accordance with standards established by the Rice Creek Watershed
District.
5. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits,the applicant shall revise the site plan as
follows:
a. Show Honeylocust Shademaster trees in place of the Honeylocust Sunburst trees.
b. Add a note to the site plan which states:
"A variance in required parking ratios was approved for this property by Planning
Commission Resolution No. 499-97. The parking ratios approved for this property are as
follows:
1 space per 1000 square feet of warehouse space
1 space per 250 square feet of office space
The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 33 parking spaces, which
would meet the parking ratios required by the Zoning Code, if deemed necessary by the
City based on future parking patterns, use of the building, and evidence that parking
needs cannot be satisfied on site. The property owner shall be notified in writing that
additional parking must be built, and upon such notice, shall construct the additional
parking within 3 months, with consideration for weather conditions."
Adopted this 24th day of March, 1997.
Mayor Duane McCarty
ATTEST:
Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
• (SEAL)
N:\DATA\USERS\DAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\475-97\5097.RES
RESOLUTION 5103
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR
BENSON-ORTH ASSOCIATES,REPRESENTING ZEP MANUFACTURING;
PLANNING CASE 475-97
WHEREAS, Benson-Orth Associates has requested City approval to construct a 22,300
square foot, one-story branch sales office and warehouse at 8490 Coral Sea Street, property
legally described as:
LOT 1, BLK 1,NORTHSTAR INDUSTRIAL PARK,2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, Chapter 1010 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a Wetland
Alteration Permit be issued for any work conducted within Wetland Zoning District within the
City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this
development proposal:
1. Planning Application dated January 27, 1997
2. Zoning Map
3. Letter from ZEP Manufacturing dated January 23, 1997
4. Site, landscape and drainage plans
WHEREAS, the location of the building and parking lot on the site meets all setback
requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the stormwater detention pond and a portion of the parking lot encroach into
the 100-foot wetland buffer area, but no alteration is proposed to the wetland shown on the City's
wetland district map; and,
WHEREAS, the City Engineer and the Rice Creek Watershed District have reviewed the
revised drainage and ponding plan and have determined that it meets the intent of the Municipal
Code and that there will be no adverse impacts on the wetland as a result of the proposed
development; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves
the Wetland Alteration Permit request made by Benson-Orth Associates for ZEP Manufacturing,
contingent upon the following:
•
Resolution No. 5103
March 24, 1997
• Page 2
1. The granting of this wetland alteration permit is contingent upon the granting of a
permit from Rice Creek Watershed District and shall be null and void if this
approval is not received within 120 days from the date on which the City Council
acts to grant this development review. In no event shall any building permits be
issued until such time as the permit from Rice Creek Watershed District has been
obtained.
2. The area which will be disturbed by grading of the detention pond shall be
reseeded with native species within the first growing season, and reseeding shall be
supplemented until a vigorous plant growth is established.
3. Any fill imported onto the site shall be free of chemical pollutants and wastes.
Adopted this 24th day of March, 1997.
Mayor Duane McCarty
• ATTEST:
Chuck Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\475-97\5103.RES
S
•
Item No. l i F
• Staff Report No. 17- 7 /,3C.
Meeting Date: March 24, 1997
Type of Business: CB
4110 WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda; CB:Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Council
From: Bruce Kessel, Finance Director.�—
Item Title/Subject: Ordinance adopting the 1996 Long Term Financial Plan
Date of Report: March 20, 1997
The City Charter requires that a long term financial plan be adopted by the City Council by
Ordinance. During 1996, the City Council held various meetings on the plan, and adopted the
1997 budget based upon information in the plan, however due to on oversight,the long term
financial plan was not adopted by Ordinance.
A copy of the 1996 Long Term Financial Plan (modified to reflect adjustments that were made
during the 1997 budget process) was distributed at the March 17, 1997 work session. Attached is
a copy of the proposed Ordinance and the second reading is tenatively scheduled for April.
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 597
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
1111
County of Ramsey
State of Minnesota
An Ordinance adopting the 1996 Long Term Financial Plan
The City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
SECTION I.
The 1996 Long Term Financial Plan was presented on June 3, 1996 and was available for
public inspection in the Office of the City Administrator.
SECTION II.
The 1996 Long Term Financial Plan is hereby adopted.
SECTION III.
This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its publication.
Introduced and read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on March 24, 1997.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 14th day of April, 1997.
ATTEST:
MAYOR
(SEAL)
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
•
BMSQN LY
111 BUREAUOF MEDIATION SERVICES
State of Minnesota
IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR
DE I'ERNIINATION OF"AN APPROPRIA I E
UNIT AND CERTIFICATION AS EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE
March 19, 1996
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. , St. Paul, Minnesota
- and -
City of Mounds View, Minnesota
BMS Case No. 97-PCE-1243
MAINTENANCE OF STATUS QUO ORDER
A petition requesting certification as exclusive representative for
collective bargaining purposes was filed with the Bureau of
4111
Mediation Services on March 18, 1997, by the Law Enforcement Labor
Services, Inc. , St. Paul, Minnesota. The petition raises questions
as to the representation of the following described employee group:
All Patrol Sergeants of the Mounds View Police
Department, Mounds View, Minnesota, who are public
employees within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 179A. 03,
subd. 14 .
This Order is issued to preserve existing conditions and promote a
free and fair environment for the resolution of this auestion of
representation. This Order is applicable to all employees within
the above described employee group. It shall remain in full force
and effect until an investigation and/or hearing has been conducted
and the matter is disposed of by a determination issued by the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services .
4111
(612)649-5421 FAX:(612)643-3013 TTD:1-800-627-3529
1380 Energy Lane •Suite#2• St.Paul,MN 55108-5253
An Equal Opportunity Employer
' C flAT
r
iy�,.s4yea,;
• LyONLY Maintenance of Status Quo Order
BMS Case No. 97-PCE-1243
Page Two. . .March 19, 1997
1111
ORDER
1 . Wages, hours and all existing conditions of employment
of the employees shall not be changed as of the date of
this Order.
2 . Negotiations shall not be carried on.
3 . Threats or promises as to changes in wages, hours and
conditions of employment are prohibited.
4 . Employees shall not be questioned by the employer with
respect to membership in a labor organization.
5. Employees shall not be discriminated against as a
result of the filing of the petition.
6. The Employer shall post this Maintenance of Status
Quo Order at the work locations of all employees
involved.
This Order shall not conflict with provisions of an existing labor-
management contract or applicable law.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
4110
=ureau of Mediation Services
TIF'W .' L. DEEB
Representation Specialist
tld
cc: Marylee Abrams
Samantha Orduno (2)
(Includes Posting Copy)
•
f 7 S"'y—� r7 a°i `moi,'"1 it
MEMO
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council members
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works v�
Subject: Weight restrictions on County Rd H2
Date: March 19, 1997
Staff consulted Steve Campbell the City's consulting engineer to determine if the City could
impose weight restrictions on Co. Rd. H2, which is a MSA street. Given the deteriorating
condition of the road, Steve's opinion was that we could justify a seven (7) ton per axle weight
restriction. All other MSA roads within the City are not posted and are nine (9)to ten(10)ton
per axle streets. Other non MSA streets are posted for five (5) tons per axle during the spring
thawing season. Permits are available for$20.00 per trip into the City which will allow a seven
(7) ton axle load. Last year during this season the permit program generated$5,400.00.
Staff also questioned Steve as to the possibility of posting H2 at Seven(7) ton per axle year
round in an effort to lessen heavy truck traffic and further damage. This option would not be
enforceable because the City, as did the County, receive state funds for maintenance and
construction derived from the gas tax. Ramsey County has performed structural design testing on
all of the segments during various years dating back to 1982. All of the segments tested between
nine (9) and ten(10) ton ratings. Steve did comment that we could leave the signs up, which
might make truck drivers seek a nonposted road to their destination, but this restriction would not
be enforceable.
At this time staff intends to post County Rd. H2 at seven(7) tons per axle load and not issue any
permits to exceed the posted limit. We will attempt to leave the signs up after the seasonal
weight limit restriction time expires and deal with any comments or questions regarding the
continued restriction at the time.
If Council has any questions or concerns regarding this issue, please feel free to call me.
•
I F 7) fl i n
i "yam . �� Ult. iii t I
0 N LY
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
League of Minnesota Cities Phone: (612) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122
Cities promoting excellence Fax: (612) 281-1299 • TDD (612) 281-1290
Right-of-Way Management & Compensation
Briefing Paper
Issue synopsis/League position:
Telecommunications service providers have directly challenged cities' authority to manage public
rights-of-way. During the debate over the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the
telecommunications industry fought in vain to pre-empt local control. However, under the enacted
law, municipalities were given explicit authority to manage the public rights-of-way. The federal
deregulation act only marked the beginning of an emerging local government issue.
The issue first began to emerge inMinnesotaas US West filed a lawsuit in Redwood County
challenging a Redwood Falls right-of-way management ordinance. Although the district court
found in favor of the city, a subsequent appeals court decision overturned the lower court. The case
in now on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Now the battle has moved to the state legislature,where the urgency of the issue has emerged as
• demand for limited space in the right-of-way has increased under telecommunications competition.
Cities insist that local government must be able to protect and manage the use of a limited right-of-
way resource acquired and maintained by property taxpayers.
The League has mounted a comprehensive legal and legislative effort to uphold cities' fundamental
responsibility for management of the right-of-way. This management role includes the ability to
recover all costs and expenses associated with the right-of-way and to obtain reasonable
compensation for its use. Hearings begin today at 12:30 p.m., on H.F. 322 (Jennings) in the House
Regulated Industries & Energy Committee.
Messages for legislators: .
• A bill must be passed out of this committee. It is in the telecommunications industry's
interest that no legislation be approved this year. If that occurs, the rights of cities to manage
the right of way will remain unclear and chaos could result. The deadline for passage out of
this committee is March 26; it is imperative that the committee approve the bill this
Thursday.
• Management authority. The bill as currently drafted contains substantial clarifying language
outlining the necessary controls cities need to manage the right of way. It is important that
this language remain.
• • Cost recovery. As currently drafted, the bill would allow cities to recover their cost for right
of way management and obligate utilities to compensate cities for damage done to the life of
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
the pavement or to assume ongoing responsibility for the pavement cuts they make. These
provisions are important parts of the bill which must be maintained.
1110
• Asset value. The bill does not include the ability of cities to charge for the right to use the
right of way. This is an important right which cities currently have for other utilities, such as
gas and electric and should be added to this bill.
• Standards. The bill would require the state(currently the Department of Public Service) to
establish uniform state-wide construction standards. The League believes that general
parameters for standards on a state-wide basis may be acceptable, but cities need flexibility
to reflect unique individual circumstances. If the bill must contain state-wide construction
standards, it must allow that type of flexibility.
Pending bills/status:
H.F. 743/S.F. 1085, introduced by Rep. Loren Jennings (DFL-Harris) and Senator Steve Novak
(DFL-New Brighton) and referred to the House and Senate committees which deal with utility
regulation(see above), would grant cities clear authority to manage and establish standards for
construction in local rights-of-way and to obtain reasonable compensation for their use.
H.F. 322/S.F. 442, introduced by Rep. Loren Jennings and Senator Steve Novak, and referred to the
same two committees, would authorize cities to control use of public rights-of-way and to impose
fees and bonding requirements to recoup direct and indirect administrative costs as well as for •
degradation, limited to an amount not greater than an unspecified per capita amount determined by
square foot of use; authorize the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to adopt uniform
construction standards; but not allow cities to recoup any other costs or to charge other fees unless
specifically authorized to do so. This bill will be the vehicle for compromise language to be
considered by both committees. Rep. Jennings intends to make major changes to the bill when it is
heard in committee on Thursday, March 20.
H.F. 451 (no Senate companion), introduced by Rep. Loren Jennings and referred to the House
Regulated Industries & Energy Committee, represents the views of the Minnesota Telephone
Association and US West. Provisions would pre-empt local authority to manage public rights-of-
way and allow telecommunications service providers to use public rights-of-way without paying
fees or complying with management requirements other than those adopted at the state or federal
level. Providers using the right-of-way on or before the effective date of the bill would not be
required to comply with permit requirements or fees, and fees could cover only costs incurred in
issuing the permit.
Prepared by: Ann Higgins
•
1 , -) r
r\-----\.„7 i i‘i i-Rj I-e 9
LMC01 Yd LY
145 University Avenue West, SL Paul, M\ 55103-2044
iilLeague of Minnesota Cities Phone: (612) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122
Cities promoting excellence Fax: (612) 281-1299 • TDD (612) 281-1290
J
Local Performance Aid
Briefing Paper
Issue synopsis/League position:
Local Performance Aid was created by the 1996 legislature and requires cities and counties to
implement systems of performance measurement in order to qualify for the aid. The city pool for
1997 is about$4.1 million and was funded through $3.7 million in city HACA and a state
appropriation of S400,000. The author's intent was for LPA to demonstrate to state officials the
efficiency of local government, and to encourage local governments to strive to be even more
efficient.
City officials expressed several concerns about the bill. Because the law as it was passed was
very vague, many city officials were unsure of what they need to do to qualify for the aid. Many
smaller cities may not have the staff capacity to do the paperwork performance measures require.
In addition, many small cities contract out for most services, so they have few tasks to measure.
• Many cities also were concerned that the program would develop into a strict mandate through
which the state would collect performance data and use it to unfairly compare cities.
Because of these concerns, the League adopted a policy opposing LPA. In addition, if LPA is to
continue the qualifications be clarified and that they be attainable by all cities. Any new funding
come from state sources rather than HACA or LGA. The program not become an onerous
mandate, and any performance measurement information collected by the state would not be used
to simplistically compare cities.
Messages for Legislators:
The League strongly supports efforts by cities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their
operations, including using performance measurement. But effective efforts must be local in
nature rather than a state mandate. LPA, if it is to continue, should be an incentive program
rather than a mandate.
Pending Legislation:
The chief author of LPA, Representative Andy Dawkins, has introduced legislation which would
significantly change LPA. It would add $13 million of state money to the city LPA pool. It
would require any city which applies for the aid to use the money for a specific city program or
• service for which performance measurements are in place. The city would need to track the
service or program for continuous improvement and report the results annually to the council.
-over-
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
The author is considering a provision which would allow cities to qualify by joining a multi-
jurisdictional purchasing cooperative. •
A separate bill, authored by Representative Ann Rest at the behest of the county association,
would establish a new grant program, the Local Innovation and Efficiency Program (LIEP),
which would distribute $25 million in each of the next two years to local units of government for
local initiatives for innovative ways to improve service design and delivery. The grants are
meant to cover one-time up-front costs which will lead to long-term taxpayer savings. The
program would be administered by the state Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation.
It is unlikely that both of these programs will pass. The two authors are working together to find
a compromise which achieves the goals of both programs. If no compromise is reached, the
House tax committee will likely choose one program(or neither) for inclusion in the omnibus tax
bill.
The Department of Revenue's tax policy bill includes an exemption for cities under 500 in
population from the LPA program. This is likely to pass if the program is not substantially
changed by one of the above proposals.
Prepared by: Eric Willette
•
•
r• 1": ?''''? di 1-tel\
g a g .✓ J y ; V II 1
ONLYi — ''''' '"") :"A .: I t
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, �L\ 55103-2044
League of Minnesota Cities Phone: (612) 281-1200 • (8.00) 925-1122
Cities promoting excellence Fax: (612) 281-1299 • TDD (612) 281-1290
Property Tax Reform
Briefing Paper
Issue synopsis/League position: Again in 1997, property tax reform has become a major
legislative focus. During last year's legislative elections, many candidates committed to property
tax reform. With the February announcement that the state's budget outlook is very optimistic
and that money for reform could be available,the chances for property tax reform are certainly
more likely. However, with 201 legislators talking about reform, there are at least that many
variation of what reform ought to be.
Generally, the property tax reform proposals that have been introduced to date contain four major
elements: 1) class rate compression; 2) additional state funding for schools; 3) cuts in state LGA
and HACA to cities and counties; and 4)new Or expanded state taxes. In addition, legislators
have introduced many modest proposals to reduce certain property class rates or otherwise
• modify the property tax system. To date,there have been 68 property tax related bills introduced
in the House and 59 introduced in the Senate.
Messages for Legislators:
With property taxes a growing concern in many communities, reform must not increase the
overall reliance of the state and local units of government on the property tax. If the system must
be reformed, city officials want true reform that will guarantee long-term stability for local
government finances. City officials believe that levy limits, property tax freezes, and state aid
cuts are not reforms and these measures will only delay true, long-term tax reform.
City officials support class rate compression where the property tax has created a demonstrated
problem for a class of property and where property tax modifications are an appropriate policy
response. We support additional state funding for K-12 education as long as it permanently
reduces the education reliance on the property tax.
We oppose market value levy provisions, levy limits, a property tax freeze and cuts in LGA and
HACA.
Pending Major Bills/Status:
For a summary of the major bills, please refer to the attached side-by-side table. To date. the
House has held informational hearings on several of the major reform proposals. The Senate
• Property Tax Subcommittee has begun background hearings on various components of property
tax reform. Neither body has yet held substantive hearings on any of the major reform proposals.
over ,
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
House Bills
H.F. 639 (Rest; Macklin; Anderson, I.; Goodno and Greiling) has received its initial hearing in
•
the House Tax Committee but no vote was taken.
H.F. 978 (Goodno, Pelowski, Garcia, Weaver and Kraus) received its initial hearing in the House
Tax Committee but no vote was taken.
H.F. 1103 (Van Dellen and Paulsen) has not yet received a hearing.
H.F. 1253 (McElroy and Long) has not yet received a hearing.
H.F. 1292 (Dawkins, Long, Macklin and Olson, E.) Received its initial hearing in the House Tax
Committee but no vote was taken.
H.F. 1442 (Pelowski) has not yet received a hearing.
H.F. 1617 (Macklin, Long, Koppendrayer, Kelso and Abrams) has not yet received a hearing.
H. F. 1643 (Bishop) has not yet received a hearing.
Senate Bills
S.F. 763 (Messrs. Sams; Johnson, D.J.; Johnson, D.E. and Mrs. Scheid) is the companion to
H.F. 978 (Goodno). The bill has not yet received a hearing. •
S.F. 821 (Messrs. Hottinger; Johnson, D.J.; Ms. Pappas, Mr. Murphy and Mrs. Scheid) is the
companion to H.F. 639 (Rest). The bill has not yet received a hearing.
S.F. 1057 (Messrs. Belanger and Johnson, D.J.) is the companion to H.F. 1253 (McElroy).
The bill has not yet received a hearing.
S.F. 1100 (Messrs. Novak and Johnson, D.J.) Has not yet received a hearing. This bill is the
companion to H.F. 1292, (Dawkins).
S.F. 1176 (Mr. Johnson, D.H.) Has not yet received a hearing. This bill is similar to the
property tax freeze bills offered by various Senators in 1995 and 1996.
S.F. 1364 (Messrs. Hottinger; Johnson, D.J. and Ms. Pappas) has not yet received a hearing.
This bill is identical to H.F. 1442 (Pelowski).
prepared by: Gary Carlson
•
I
N
0 CD
ri
CL ^. r; =
Ci o Co y '
IV
if.C o
o �
et
N ° a �' as �. o 0 o a r w
• .,'' •
e � - : � ° o• 1n
LA
CDa � o < cu t ; -0 O •
_ a -. • � � � C rDa � Pa• -f �
. fC CD cv ` Cv - -
CD a, Ua co 0o AG .o CD a. 0O O uu
cr
17 CD CD
CD
Cn
cn
— O
7 CD "t CD '� In ^ '•"' b9 .8-• '--'`0 • a 6 7o Cn
c
C CD C C OC/DC) 8 2 cD - O 0 C
z.C� 0 �� C �- _,� •� n O_ �1
O C A' 0 0+ C • O rg O C O 'C ,- 0.. = C
(D
cD D 0.' ••t < C t-0 A CD cD cis cD O CL
C O C✓k< CCIUI
• R
a '"• pc» tiOOX . = < •
O ,..7Z in
r
R ; O •-s
. Q
C <<
0 -ii -• n Q x 0 G_ p V2
. ago 0n a • - (-
P A) cD o
= po T c CA g ? a P E ro• Y �,
Cr = A) Q i--, N C = CSD O
,L."
aM c_ co o.
O CD
Q < P "1 M
D a. x t1 •t
0 0 r + 0 C ' I.
ED--
(.-....--.:•
H+ • 7
O CD SST 0= . ."•
CD C ry(C)D a �V
oar c'.9
...Air)
CD CD 0 `< cr CD C O p• `D LS CSD C Ft; 2
O C P C O 0. C � "i
�+ cm
CD ••t CCD 0 O = `C C O
CP D ^ P O ...1*
•t 6' CD C C4 In •-•t UQ O CD 0.C ty x Z C s,..m.
yXe 0- •C�t• n N X O •'00 O C O
• -t CD CD CM CD C4 CL CD
c w o • co, ,. n. ��
�, o a •o n m " .» -o
V2 C
a CD b n p, N o a 0;
x y a. = as x
C10Q '' CD C 0O ,C... CD << C=D P
R. �, Uq Ot ,-- W T a.
CID Cox ( x =
•
:-1-1 71 i-ri
,•• • .-- n
Oa N J W '-'a
O . C CIII
0 O 0 a 0 0
C m
a r. a 0
Udo 0 UOo O y
N OaQ CD a" rr N A) CCD 'C CD p, Cr'0 N •< C Cr .- n
o �. a' 0 a a' x a. o a cD n : c •DI ._
A; a' cn 0 _ CD CD n -p CD CACA
c• >4 0 a+ a.
a CD G CD p p CA �. cD "CD CD 'a S y
c4 ro
a r--h• `C rT �a-t O a• a U 0 a
' a i v
cD '.
CD J '-'
n CD n CD CrCD
n 't3 N '-t CD 0 _
c00 ,
o a O
C n O a.`C
O
h � Ia cm g
r-t -•r- . 0 "t te" c or"
ry r-• CCC , . va
00 . rC C '•r .. I CD ,- o a . fn CrAl Q.N � a -C •R aa N o " a. a. a 'p r•
CD C!1 \0 h -.v " a p CD
ct, \0 ..--, GI ,-.. •-e. fi, 0 •
• ,. cp9 ° 1-1-,
n CD A'• D O C o CD C3' 't A > 0 0 ^ a" ~
r
CD
a. CD C) 4' c9 C/, r-= O a' v,, A; A • o •O c
c0- 2- '• = cD 0- 5 a+ w a.� � .� ,- . a •-t>, P;
A) CD 0 - �. x co C o a0 o ° a
¢- b4 N'< � ,-I o c w t" CD• cryo _, cD
<• C a. 5 fD CD '.� a' �C �' w J • a' 0
Az o a' fD , -t �. GLc�D YO - ON � C.
W a '6• a 50 C1) P o w 5•
. OT c: PA, _ x .- .D O p v CD
O 00 C.
— OO
CD C- O O O ) A. nax a. k 4-.) C C°
e""3a CIO _ a 14Oca >4 ' CD :
. • CD CD ,-.1 CD CD • ^ ,—, Of ` '? a1 ,.S ( ft
aa' �v °
CDCD ' ( CD n N '' A, "- D a
a ^ r* " a ° a' SCD r-. "C
RNaG CD �- >' r*
'11-7xp C a 9 O CD -I
CDCD cD P O • c .‹ ,-.1 ^ ,-c)7 0-x CD
D0r .-Caw0'CI " ° °Po 5
n.
.° - � i � = C X - Cpa . CD " . 1
. •
0
C o r, a. d `C qo O CD ..• • = 0 k
>4 •
co
CD a. 0 Cr A) CD N C,, 0
ocD a A, O a O
p; CDD coSCD C)
A: s
CJS ...."- �' w
'SJ '11
0 01
a
ADo
C
cn
O
c
c c6 c < 0
= •- c :� .,
CDc' P.. c 0 C:
vo
r- pa ~ci) ' n -.
O a. co
C a-
• VD0 't3 oa. ,, co C 0
• oc CD 't << a _ o- , ~ = c00 N ?< s C
coO ""t
n O r c :L. c a. n' 0 c
CD Ow a e
P IQ Cr
"d ,---, (~D N � ¢ci: � � � SCD 43 O
0
O AD CD
do
C� C
O• 0 0 0 — l c t..<
CL
r. _ as — n
.
,..0•-c
G� ^ c ° .
CCD• Y \Ca
= c oo Yoo
< - - o n < 0 y
CCDD A C = O `< 0 G
. O. s. r Vt �' C
c r 1 aT n
_
¢; ro
a a
—0 JO nOp *
N CD _ C:. v' CA O �
CD ac _
F.: a O . p
c AD �.
-ten ^D O O O - r ° , .��`
co C ��
cn = CD r. �;
•
c Q:Q • • C H c./) ,-r-
=
M
c cna
1.1
o) x -
a p, o o 0- >e > FD= Q., 1:11 ,_*•••••• 1:Z 0,
•
CD a.,..t CD g �. o
fCD
CD a., cn
cn
cn C
CD
A. 0 c. n
a A '
R o a
b a•
VD J ►; �'-
l C CD
05
eD
cn
V
O n p.. `C 0 n
'CD a� A w C o
g7 C
CD 0 CA il:j g CD
C a 10.
cn O• n
•
0
C
03 � �
CD o
cn c cD
0c0 mac:
c�' oD a'
A
CD �'
CD CD
a �'
o AD
o
CL
Cr
CD
a
0
Qcn r-f' •-•• .�•.. CD
O ,..• 0n
CD o 's
c °C) � = A o•
o R
til
•o a � 'a ao, oo o. - cl
`Cn• _ NCD yz
0
E. p ,,, y(ny �„
rr C \ �..i• r...�1
0 M- c F/
CD
EU RMKflO
ONLY
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
. League of Minnesota Cities Phone: (612) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122
Cities prrmotii gexc¢nence Fax: (612) 281-1299 • TDD (612) 281-1290
Price of Government
Briefing Paper
Issue synopsis/League position:
The Price of Government legislation requires that the Governor recommend and the House and
Senate adopt targets for the overall percentage of personal income collected by the state and local
units of government. These targets are adopted every two years in the odd-numbered, budget
setting year.
The targets were originally established as a long-term barometer of trends in state and local
government revenues. The chief House author, Representative Ann Rest, has insisted that"the
law is not intended to be used for making short-term course corrections, like persuading local
governments to lower their levies." Nonetheless, since the law was enacted in 1993, the Price of
Government targets have been used to criticize local units of government.
This past year, the Commissioner of Revenue criticized city officials for increasing the proposed
0 1997 property tax levies beyond the POG targets. In fact, as the law is written, the POG targets
do not isolate property taxes, but instead projects total local government revenues. The
commissioner's letter is evidence of the confusing nature of the law and the need for
clarification.
Messages for Legislators:
The original intent of the price of government legislation should be reviewed and the clarified.
The law should not be used as a short-term limitation on local government levies, but used as a
tool to understand the impact of policy changes, demographic changes and other factors that
influence local revenue trends. If the long-term planning aspect of the law cannot be clarified,
POG, as it applies to local units of government should be repealed.
Pending Major Bills/Status:
The Governor recommended and the House and Senate have approved POG targets for the
upcoming two biennia. The targets adopted by the House and Senate are less aggressive in
reducing the overall price of government than the Governor's original proposal.
After holding informational hearings on the price of government law earlier in the session, House
Tax Chair Dee Long has indicated that she will likely recommend an interim study of the POG
law that will hopefully lead to future recommendations on the application of the POG targets.
411) prepared by: Gary Carlson
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
r:
Pi.
It j a 0 P'+1i fiTi n !N Na
i9 di : V / i iia
9
0 N i y
4 L
145 University Avenue West, St. Pa , IN 55103-2044
. League of Minnesota Cities Phone: (612) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122
Cities promoting excellence Fax: (612) 281-1299 • TDD (612) 281-1290
•
Repeal of the Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases
Briefing Paper
Issue synopsis/League position:
In 1992, the Legislature balanced its budget, in part, by extending the state's sales tax to the
purchases of cities, counties, townships and special taxing authorities. This action has increased
the operating costs for affected local units of government by an estimated $75 to $80 million per
year. Minnesota is one of only eight states that tax the purchases of its local units of
government.
Since the sales tax was extended to local units, many cities and counties have experienced
compliance problems. For example, despite good faith efforts to comply with the state's sales
tax law, several border cities have been caught in the complex web of taxable interstate
purchases. Other communities have experienced difficulties with the interpretation of the tax
• status of purchases of items that are ultimately used in the production of a commodity to be sold
at retail. In fact, the law is so complex that the state department of Revenue has just released five
detailed instruction booklets to assist local officials in understanding the application of the law.
The League initiated legislation in 1996 to repeal the sales tax. This year, the Minnesota
Association of Counties has joined our effort to enact the repeal.
Messages for Legislators:
With the dramatic turnaround in the state's budget situation, city officials believe that the sales
tax on local government purchases must be repealed. The sales tax increases local property taxes
at a time when property taxpayers are demanding relief. The administrative complexity for local
units of government also add indirect local costs above and beyond the estimated $80 million
annual local sales tax liability.
Pending Major Bills/Status:
Six identical bills have been introduced to date. None of the bills has yet received a hearing in
either the House or the Senate.
House Bills
H. F. No. 545 (Haas, Van Dellen, McElroy and Mares)
• H. F. No. 1042 (Mulder)
-over-
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
H. F. No. 1256 (Goodno and Rest)
Senate Bills •
S.F. No. 655 (Mr. Price, Mrs. Scheid, Mr. Hottinger, Mses. Pappas and Runbeck)
S.F. No. 1039 (Mr. Limmer, Mrs. Fischbach, Mr. Ourada, Mrs. Robling and Ms. Runbeck)
S.F. No. 1256 (Mr. Hottinger and Ms. Runbeck)
prepared by: Gary Carlson
•
INFORMM2ON
ONLY
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
1111 League of Minnesota Cities Phone: (612) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122
Cities promoting excellence Fax: (612) 281-1299 • TDD (612) 281-1290
Electric Utility Restructuring
Briefing Paper
Issue synopsis/League position: Policy makers at the state and federal levels are considering
ways to bring competition into the electric utility industry. In preparation for a competitive
environment, the state's investor owned utilities are seeking an exemption from the personal
property tax and have proposed a meter tax as a mechanism to replace revenues lost by local
units of government. The League's position on restructuring is that is cautious, deliberative
approach is necessary to ensure that all consumers benefit. A working group of city officials has
developed a set of"Principles for Guiding Electric Utility Restructuring in Minnesota." The
League opposes current proposals for exempting investor owned utilities from the personal
property tax. The League Board adopted a policy on "Electric Utility Taxation" on February 20,
1997.
Messages for legislators: On the overall restructuring issue, ask lawmakers to take into
consideration the actual impact on rates, to ensure equitable benefits for all consumers, to protect
low-income individuals and the elderly, to protect the environment and ensure that we continue
to invest in renewable energy sources, to ensure that safe and uninterrupted service is provided,
to ensure that cities retain the ability to manage and receive compensation for the use of public
rights-of-way, to support municipalization or municipal aggregation efforts, and to involve local
officials and consumers in the decision-making process. On the personal property tax exemption
for investor-owned utilities, ask lawmakers to oppose the current investor owned utilities'
proposal.
Pending bills/status:
H.F. 628/H.F. 1119, introduced by Rep. Dan McElroy (DFL-Burnsville) and Senator Steve
Kelley (DFL-Hopkins) and referred to the House Regulated Industries and Energy committee
and the Senate Jobs, Energy, Community Development committee, would allow cities to
purchase electricity from any electric utility providing service in an assigned service area which
is located wholly or partially within the city.
H.F. 1298/S.F. 1268, introduced by Rep. Loren Jennings (DFL-Rush City) and Senator Steve
Novak (DFL-New Brighton) and referred to the House Regulated Industries and Energy
committee and the Senate Jobs. Energy and Community Development committee, would
authorize utilities to elect to charge a personal property tax replacement fee instead of including
11111
-over-
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
their ad valorem personal property taxes in their electric rates. The bill would also provide an
exemption from the personal property tax for tools, implements, and machinery which are part of
an electric generating system and initially assessed after January 2, 1997. This bill was heard on •
Tuesday, March 18 and will be further debated before it is voted on, Thursday, March 20 at
12:30 p.m.
H.F. 1299, introduced by Rep Loren Jennings (DFL-Rush City) and referred to the House
Regulated Industries and Energy committee, would rename the "electric energy task force" the
"legislative commission on utility competition" and reorganize its membership. By February 15,
1998,the commission would present recommendations to the legislature regarding whether and
how to proceed in restructuring the electric industry. The bill was heard, passed with minor
amendments, and re-referred to the Environment and Natural Resources committee on Tuesday,
March 18.
H.F. 1464, introduced by Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL- Willmar) and referred to the Regulated
Industries and Energy committee,would authorize municipal utilities and rural electric
cooperatives to form joint ventures for the provision of utility services.
H.F. 1525, introduced by Rep. Loren Jennings (DFL-Rush City) and referred to the Regulated
Industries and Energy committee,would require electric utilities entering into customer-specific
rates, terms, or service conditions contracts to file for approval with the Public Utilities
Commission. Discretionary rate reductions for tariffed electric services to eligible customers
would be permitted, subject to Commission approval. •
S.F. 1344, introduced by Senator Kenric Scheevel (R-Preston) and referred to the Jobs, Energy,
and Community Development committee, would require the Department of Public Service to
study retail wheeling and electric utility restructuring and report to the legislature by February 1,
1998. The study would be funded by assessments to the state's electric utilities, not to exceed at
total of $100,000. The bill would also require the Public Utilities Commission to establish
procedures to review and approve tariffs for rates that would foster economic development and
retain existing industrial companies, applicable until 2002..
S.F. 1348, introduced by Senator Mark Ourada(R-Buffalo) and referred to the Jobs, Energy, and
Community Development committee, would require electric utilities to submit plans to
restructure themselves into three separate entities (providing generation,transmission, or
distribution services) by January 1, 1999 with Public Utilities Commission approval or
modification by December 31, 1999, require a retail wheeling study by the Department of Public
Service and report to the legislature by December 1, 1998, require the Public Utilities
Commission to establish a retail wheeling pilot program conducted from October 1, 1997 to
September 30, 1998 and report to the legislature by December 1, 1998, and mandate retail
wheeling for all Minnesota customers by January 1, 2001.
Prepared by: Andrea Atherton
1 ; virunmi-11 ION
ONLY
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 53103-2044
League of Minnesota CiEies Phone: (612) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122
Cities promoting excellence Fax: (612) 281-1299 • TDD (612) 281-1290
FDA Tobacco Regulation Summary ,
Briefing Paper
1. What are the FDA tobacco regulations?
The FDA tobacco regulations were adopted in the August 28, 1996 Federal Register and signed
into law in October 1996. They are an attempt by the Food and Drug Administration to reduce
youth access to, and use of, cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco by establishing
tight restrictions on the promotion and sale of such products. The FDA adopted the regulations
pursuant to its powers under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. At the current time, the
regulations do not extend to other tobacco products or related devices such as cigars, pipes, and
lighters.
2. What do the FDA regulations require/prohibit, and when do the regulations take effect?
0 With regard to cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco, the following regulations
have been adopted:
Effective February 28, 1997:
- Prohibit sales to anyone under the age of 18;
- Require photographic identification as proof of age for any one 26 years of age or
under.
Effective August 28. 1997:
- Ban on free samples and the sale of individual cigarettes or packs of fewer than 20;
- Ban on vending machines and self-service displays, except for limited types of
establishments where persons under the age of 18 are at all times prohibited from
entering the establishment;
-Ban on outdoor advertising (including windows)within 1,000 feet of schools and
publicly owned playgrounds;
•
-over-
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
•
•
wfor most other advertising, includingall 4110
Only black-and-white text advertising allowed g,
point-of-sale advertising;
-Ban on the sale or giveaway of promotional materials such as caps and gym bags
containing product brand names or logos for cigarettes or smokeless tobacco;
- Tighter labeling restrictions.
Effective August 28. 1998
-Ban on sponsorship of any sporting or other event, team, or other entry, if the
sponsorship identifies a specific tobacco brand(includes ban on symbols, etc. associated
with a particular brand name. Corporate name sponsorship is allowed.).
3. Who is responsible for enforcement and compliance?
The FDA regulations impose the burden of compliance on the manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers. Each manufacturer will be responsible for removing non-complying self-service
displays, advertising, labeling, and other non-conforming items owned by that manufacturer.
Retailers are also responsible for removing non-complying items from their stores, and are
additionally responsible for verifying the age of customers, refusing sales to anyone under 18,
and allowing sales only in the form of a face-to-face transaction where there is an actual
exchange of the cigarettes or tobacco between the clerk and the customer.
Only authorized agents of the FDA have the authority to seek the imposition of a penalty for
violation of the FDA regulations. The FDA is currently seeking to deputize select State
Attorneys General for enforcement assistance, and may seek additional deputies as needed.
Local law enforcement officials may continue to enforce local ordinances and in addition are
encouraged to notify the FDA of suspected violations of the FDA regulations. Such officers,
however, cannot directly issue a citation for violation of the FDA regulations.
4. What is the penalty for violation of the FDA regulations and on whom can it be
imposed?
The general penalty under the FDA tobacco regulation will be a civil fine of$250. However,
seizure of unlawful items, injunctions, restraining orders, additional fines, and possible
imprisonment are also potential penalties. Penalties may be imposed upon any person convicted
of violating the regulations. Employers can be held liable for the actions of their employees.
Penalties under the FDA regulations may be imposed in addition to any penalty imposed for
violation of a local regulation.
P I rn 0 M
%..aq C I li . 4 I ON
•
ONLy
• 5. What is the impact of the FDA regulations on local ordinances?
The FDA has made it clear that they want to encourage local units of government to continue to
adopt and enforce local regulations that have the effect of furthering the prevention of youth
access to cigarettes and tobacco. However, under the provisions of the Federal Act authorizing
the regulations, any provision of a local regulation that regulates in a different manner any matter
covered by the FDA regulation is preempted. Provisions that are identical or substantially
similar to the language contained in the FDA regulations are not preempted, nor are provisions
governing issues not directly addressed in the FDA regulations.
Examples of preempted ordinance provisions include complete bans on vending machines and
self-service restrictions that are not a complete ban on such transactions. On the other hand,
general licensing requirements are not preempted as the FDA regulations are silent on the issue
of licensure. Further, an ordinance provision prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to anyone under
the age of 18 would not be preempted as such a provision mirrors the FDA requirement. Penalty
provisions are also specifically exempt from preemption.
A waiver process has been established to allow local regulations that are more restrictive than the
FDA regulations, or for which the local unit of government can demonstrate a compelling need
based on the unique circumstances of that particular entity. The League is working with
4110 representatives of the Minnesota Attorney General's office and the Minnesota Department of
Health to develop a coordinated waiver application process for cities with ordinances containing
preempted language. A preemption review guide and model waiver application form will be
made available to cities by late March or early April. May 6, 1997 has been set as the deadline
for priority review of waiver applications and it is hoped that a coordinated application on behalf
of at least a majority of cities in need of a waiver can be submitted by that date.
6. Isn't there a pending lawsuit over the FDA tobacco regulations?
Coyne Beahm, Inc. et al. V. United States Food& Drug Administration and David Kessler was
filed in Greensboro, North Carolina seeking an injunction against the regulations as well as a
finding the FDA lacks authority to regulate tobacco, and that the regulations as adopted are
unconstitutional. A hearing was held on February 10 seeking a preliminary injunction blocking
enforcement of the requirements but no immediate order was granted. At least a preliminary
ruling is expected in April. Even if the regulations were to be enjoined or held unconstitutional
in North Carolina, which is in the fourth federal judicial district, the FDA may elect to continue
enforcement in other districts such as Minnesota, which is in the 8th federal judicial district, until
such time as a Supreme Court ruling is issued or further successful challenges are made in other
judicial districts.
III
-over-
7. What sources of information are available?
As it becomes available, updated information will be placed in the League Bulletin. Information
may also be obtained by calling the FDA hotline number, 1-888-FDA-4KIDS (1-888-332-4543).
In addition, the Tobacco Control Resource Center at Northeastern School of Law in Boston has
established the "FDA Exemption Clearinghouse"to assist cities with the preemption waiver
process. Clearinghouse information can be obtained by calling Bob Kline at 1-888-FDA-
EXEMPT (1-888-332-3936).
Web sites on the Internet that contain helpful information, including downloadable copies of the
actual FDA regulations include the following:
www.fda.gov
www.tobacco.neu.edu(Clearinghouse homepage)
www.ash.org
www.tobacco.org
As always, cities may contact the League directly with any questions about this issue. The
contact person for questions about tobacco issues and the FDA regulations is Kent Sulem, LMC
Codification Attorney, at(612) 281-1245.
•
Prepapred by: Kent Sulem
4111
r 11 ON
r $ I
lii...iift----\"7 ONLY
MC 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
ague of Minnesota Cities Phone: (612) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122
ifies promoting excellence Fax: (612) 281-1299 • TDD (612) 281-1290
Tax Increment Financing
Briefing Paper
Issue synopsis/League position: The use of tax increment financing (TIF) is once again being
criticized by lawmakers and others at the state level. Various circumstances have combined to
bring the TIF issue to the forefront in the 1997 legislative session. These include: (1) the
increasingly-touted TIF impact on the state's general fund due to education finance formulas and
a denial of the but-for test's validity, (2)the Legislative Auditor's March 1996 Report criticizing
the use of pre-1990 increments for"general public improvements," and (3) the Office of the State
Auditor's concerns discovered in their first year of oversight responsibilities, largely in the form
of differences of opinion with practitioners as to how various areas of the law should be
interpreted. The League supports increased flexibility in the use of tax increment financing and
opposes changes that would hamper cities ability to use the tax increment tool.
Messages for legislators: Give your legislators detailed examples as to how tax increment
• financing has been critical in your community's development and redevelopment efforts. Specify
positive results such as property tax base development,job creation, and other benefits. Stress
that TIF is often the only tool available to cities and that local-decision-makers are in the best
position to decide which projects are best for their communities.
Pending bills/status:
H.F. 815/S.F. 842, introduced by Rep. Ann Rest (DFL-New Hope) and Senator Leonard Price
(DFL-Woodbury) and referred to the House and Senate Local Government committees, would
eliminate Option A in the calculation of fiscal disparities contributions. The contributions would
be required to be taken from within TIF districts. .
H.F. 914/S.F. 838, introduced by Rep. Jim Rostberg (R-Isanti) and Senator Bill Belanger (R-
Bloomington) and referred to the House and Senate Local Government committees, would
authorize local units of government to abate up to half of a certain portion of property taxes
attributable to the value added by new construction or rehabilitation, reconstruction, and
additions to existing structures on commercial property. Effective for property taxes payable in
1998 and thereafter.
H.F. 926/S.F. 847, introduced by Rep. Steve Sviggum (R-Kenyon) and Senator Dick Day (R-
Owatonna) and referred to the House and Senate Local Government committees, would expand
the authority to elect the local contribution alternative to the LGA/HACA penalty for new and
• -over-
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
expanded TIF districts to districts for which the request for certification was made before June
30, 1994 if certain limited conditions are met. Effective for aids payable in the year after the •
election is made.
H.F. 1473, introduced by Rep. Karen Clark(DFL-Minneapolis) and referred to the Economic
Development and International Trade committee,would a bipartisan commission to examine and
make recommendations to the legislature on state subsidy programs and tax laws related to
economic development.
H.F. 1547, introduced by Rep. Dennis Ozment(R-Rosemount) and referred to the Taxes
committee, makes several significant changes to the TIF law that will potentially impact all
existing districts.
H.F. 1549, introduced by Rep. Doug Peterson DFL-Madison) and referred to the Taxes
committee, would allow the use of economic development districts for certain retail facilities in
border cities. Effective the day following final enactment.
S.F. 601/H.F. 1184, introduced by Senator Larry Pogemiller(DFL-Minneapolis) and Rep. Bob
Milbert (DFL- South St. Paul) and referred to the Senate Local Government committee and the
House Taxes committee, would authorize the establishment of heritage and historic subdistricts.
S.F. 949/H.F. 1192, introduced by Senator Pat Piper(DFL-Austin) and Rep. Rob Leighton •
(DFL-Austin) and referred to the Senate Jobs, Energy& Community Development committee
and the House Economic Development and International Trade committee, would place a
moratorium on TIF, existing grants, loans, and other tax incentives, and new expenditures for
economic development until the DTED meets certain reporting requirements on the effect of
such incentives on wage levels and job creation. Effective the day following final enactment.
The bill is scheduled for a hearing in the House on Wednesday, March 19, at 12:30 p.m.
S.F. 1100/H.F. 1292, a comprehensive property tax reform proposal introduced by Senator Steve
Novak(DFL-New Brighton) and Rep. Andy Dawkins (DFL-St.Paul) and referred to the Senate
and House Taxes committees, includes provisions which restrict and repeal various provisions of
the TIF law. Currently, many of these sections would apply retroactively but the authors will
offer an amendment to make them prospective in effect.
Note: The above-referenced bills have not been scheduled for hearings unless otherwise noted.
Some bills may be heard in the House Local Government committee on Tuesday, March 25, at
12:30 p.m.
Prepared by: Andrea Atherton
•
IN INFO A MAT! ON N'
Lynne Thomason ON LY
5301 Edgewood Drive
Mounds View, MN 55112
IP March 19, 1997
Pam Sheldon
Community Development Department
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Dear Ms. Sheldon:
I will be attending the Planning Commission meeting on March 19, 1997 to express my total opposition
to any proposed rezoning of the O'Neil property to accommodate 16-screen movie theater and three
office buildings. I wished also to write this letter in case I didn't get a chance at this meeting to voice my
concerns.
Living at the corner of County Road H-2 and Edgewood Drive, I will be one on the residents most
adversely affected by this development. At present time the noise from ever increasing traffic in this area
IIIis already reaching the intolerable range. This development belongs elsewhere, not in at residential area
already too impacted by present noise pollution. This development also would remove the last aesthetic
view the residents of Edgewood Drive have. Presently we look eastward over a noisy and visually
unattractive Robert's nightclub to see an equally unattractive Fina station and looking to the northeast we
can see a congested noisy Highway 10 and Donatally's incinerator and dumpsters. The woods at the
north are the only thing in the neighborhood that is not an eye or ear sore and now someone wants to
concrete over that too? I am also in agreement with the other residents in their concern over increasing
crime rates and lower property values as these certainly will occur.
Therefore in closing please listen to the people,place more value on us than potential tax revenue and do
not allow this development to proceed.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
:96797/
�,�,.r -
." -ri4n Lynne-Thomason
cc: City Council Members
0Mayor McCarthy
Cary.9"..il,srArla�, cAr, - lit/r-u