HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2009/02/08CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, February 9, 2009
7:00 p.m.
REVISED AS OF FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2009 @ 1PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Flaherty, Stigney, Hull, Mueller, Gunn
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give
your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to
three minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 p.m. – Public Hearing – Resolution 7406 - Major Subdivision for the
Mermaid (2200 Highway 10)
B. Resolution 7408 Granting Preliminary Approval to Draft the LSWMP and
Authorizing Distribution to Review Agencies
C. Resolution 7409 Authorization to contract with Evergreen Land Services to
acquire ROW for Traffic Signal Installation at SLR and County Road H.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 7407 Adopting a Modification to Sections 2.2 thru 2.4 of the City’s
Purchasing Policy.
C. Resolution 7410, Granting the Great Lakes Shipwreck Preservation
Society a One Day Charitable Gambling Permit to Conduct a Raffle on
February 28, 2009, at The Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center in
Mounds View.
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
City Council Agenda
Monday, February 9, 2009
Page 2
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. January 12, 2009, City Council Minutes.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Report from Bonestroo regarding design issue on the County Road 10
Trail Segments 1-5
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 2, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 23, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, February 9, 2009
7:00 p.m.
REVISED AS OF FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2009 @ 1PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Flaherty, Stigney, Hull, Mueller, Gunn
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give
your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to
three minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 p.m. – Public Hearing – Resolution 7406 - Major Subdivision for the
Mermaid (2200 Highway 10)
B. Resolution 7408 Granting Preliminary Approval to Draft the LSWMP and
Authorizing Distribution to Review Agencies
C. Resolution 7409 Authorization to contract with Evergreen Land Services to
acquire ROW for Traffic Signal Installation at SLR and County Road H.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 7407 Adopting a Modification to Sections 2.2 thru 2.4 of the City’s
Purchasing Policy.
C. Resolution 7410, Granting the Great Lakes Shipwreck Preservation
Society a One Day Charitable Gambling Permit to Conduct a Raffle on
February 28, 2009, at The Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center in
Mounds View.
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. January 12, 2009, City Council Minutes.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Report from Bonestroo regarding design issue on the County Road 10
Trail Segments 1-5
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 2, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 23, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
Item No: 7A
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Type of Business: Council Business
Administrator Review :________
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Ken Roberts, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Revised Preliminary
Plat for the Mermaid; Planning Case MA2009-001
Introduction:
Charlie and Dan Hall, owners and representatives of The Mermaid, have applied to the City
for a major subdivision. This latest proposal shows the 8.9-acre property divided into two
lots – one 3.0-acre parcel for the existing hotel and 273 parking spaces and a 5.9-acre parcel
for the Mermaid and associated parking. The owners of the Mermaid wish to divide their
property to create separate lots for the Mermaid Entertainment Center and the AmericInn
Hotel. Since this new plat is a substantial change from the previous plat approved by the
Commission and City Council, the City Council should review and take action on the revised
plat.
Background:
On October 15, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 7340. This approval included a
preliminary plat (to divide the property into three lots) and a PUD amendment (to allow retail
uses in the PUD). This approval was to accommodate a possible retail center on the corner
of the property near County 10 and County Road H. (Please see the enclosed concept plan
of this proposal.) Because the developer does not intend to proceed with this 3-lot plan, the
City should clarify that this approval will become invalid if the City approves this latest
request.
Discussion:
Major Subdivision Summary:
The proposed subdivision would divide the property into two separate distinct lots. As
proposed, Lot 1 would be 5.9-acres and would include the Mermaid facility and its associated
487 parking spaces. Lot 2 would be three acres and would include the hotel and 273 parking
spaces. Both of these lots appear to meet minimum City subdivision requirements.
The Mermaid is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and the proposed two-lot
subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. As submitted, the
proposed plat appears to meet City Code requirements and the City Attorney is now
reviewing the proposal. There are easement agreements in place that address the shared
parking and access for the entire site. The Halls intend to keep these agreements in place
but they may have to amend them to accommodate the latest legal descriptions of the new
lots (if approved). The proposed property line would separate the Mermaid from the hotel.
Another issue that
Mermaid Staff Report
February 9, 2009
Page 2
arose during the City’s review of the three-lot plat in 2008 (and is still a concern today), is
that the proposed subdivision would put a property line running through the structure to
formally separate the Mermaid from the hotel.
To allow the proposed division, the building code may require additional firewall construction
between the structures to have each building on its own lot. This is an issue because the fire
code does not allow for any openings where the property line runs through the building.
There is currently a hallway and a set of doors that connects the Mermaid to the hotel. The
fire code would require this opening to be permanently closed off, but the Minnesota
Department of Labor & Industry has allowed openings if each building/property owner signs
a “Hold Harmless Agreement.” By not allowing openings between separate buildings, the fire
code is trying to prevent or reduce the fire spread or damage done to the adjoining building if
there were to be a fire. The Hold Harmless Agreement would acknowledge the additional
liability due to the opening between the buildings. City Attorney Scott Riggs also has agreed
that such an agreement is possible as an alternative as long as the document has adequate
protective language running in favor of the City.
TIF
The majority of the Mermaid property is in TIF District #1, which runs until 2013. There is a
minimum assessment agreement in place with the property owners and the City as part of
the developer agreement. This requires the property to have a minimum value to support the
required debt service payments. Staff is planning to discuss further the TIF and the
financing details at the February 23, 2009 EDA meeting, since the EDA has to consent to the
subdivision by virtue of the development assistance agreements.
Parking
In 2000, when the City approved the PUD for the hotel addition, the PUD Agreement stated
that 808 parking stalls were required for the site. There are currently 760 stalls existing on
the Mermaid site, 48 less than what the City required in 2000. The proposed plan would not
remove any existing parking spaces from the site. However, it would put 273 parking spaces
with the hotel and would leave 487 parking spaces for the Mermaid facility. The Halls and
the new owner of the hotel are proposing to continue to share the existing access and
parking on the site.
The parking demands for this entire site vary throughout each day. Not all of the uses and
activities on the site have their peak parking demands at the same time or even on the same
day of the week. The Mermaid site is currently 48 parking stalls short of what the City
required in 2000 and the owners have been leasing unused daytime spaces for Park & Ride
parking. Despite this apparent parking shortage, the owners state that the parking lot has
never been filled to anywhere near capacity. City staff is not aware of any parking problems
at this location and the proposed property subdivision should not change the parking needs
on the site.
Mermaid Staff Report
February 9, 2009
Page 3
Comprehensive Plan: The 1998 Comprehensive Plan Existing Land Use Map shows the County
Highway 10 and County Road H corner as four parcels, thus was the case until 2000 when the
Mermaid purchased the Rent-All building and the four existing parcels were replatted for the hotel
addition and rezoned to a PUD. The 1998 Future Land Use map designates the entire Mermaid
corner as Regional Commercial PUD, and this is the land use designation for the site in the 2008
Comprehensive Plan update. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with that
designation and consistent with the goals and policies as articulated in the Land Use section of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Drainage Plan: In 2002, a new regional stormwater pond was constructed along County Road
H, at the southeast corner of the Edgewood Middle School property. This pond is to help treat
the stormwater runoff for the Mermaid, from several other nearby properties and for the County
Road H reconstruction. Since this latest plat would only divide the property and would not
involve any new construction, there are no drainage or stormwater concerns with this proposal.
Easements: The City’s Subdivision Code requires that plats dedicate perimeter drainage and
utility easements for each lot in the subdivision. This plat already has the required perimeter
easements around the current Mermaid property, and staff does not believe that adding
additional easements along the new property lines running through the structure and parking lot
are necessary.
Streets: The applicants are not proposing any new or altered streets or access drives into the
Mermaid site with this proposal.
Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is
subject to a park dedication fee. In this case, the City typically sets the fee as equal to 10% of
the market value of the land. (Staff uses Ramsey County assessed values as the basis for
dedication computation.) In 2000, when the City approved the PUD, the owners paid a park
dedication fee of $92,306. The City determined this fee based on the land value of the entire
property in 2000. Chapter 1204.02, Subd. 5 of the City Code addresses park dedication fees for
a resubdivision:
Subd. 5. Dedication for Re-Subdivision: For any subdivision of a parcel on which a cash
dedication for parks has previously been made but on which an additional cash
dedication is required due to re-subdivision, the amount of cash dedication required on
the re-subdivided parcel(s) shall be based on the market value of the land at the time of
re-subdivision and the factors set forth in subdivision 4 of this Section less any applicable
credit for the prior cash dedication.
It is important to note in this case that the proposed subdivision would not allow or be for
additional construction on the property. It essentially divides existing uses to allow for separate
ownership of each business. As such, the proposal should not create any additional impact or
demand on the City park system. Based on this, City staff is not recommending that the City
charge a park dedication fee with this proposed plat.
Mermaid Staff Report
February 9, 2009
Page 4
Deadline for Action:
The City accepted this application on January 21, 2009 and in accordance with MN Statute
15.99, the City must make a decision about this request within 60 days of application
acceptance. As such, the deadline for City action for this request is March 19, 2009.
Planning Commission Action: On February 4, 2009, the Planning Commission unanimously
(6-0 vote with Meehlhause absent), recommended approval of the revised preliminary plat.
Alternatives:
The City Council should review the plans and discuss the revised preliminary plat. The Council may
take one of the following actions related to the Preliminary Plat request:
1. Approve the revised Preliminary Plat as requested.
2. Deny the request. To consider this option, the Council will need to direct staff to prepare a
resolution with findings of fact to support the denial.
3. Table action on the request. This option would be appropriate if the City Council needs
additional information or more input before they can make a decision.
Recommendation:
City staff is recommending approval of the revised Preliminary Plat for the Mermaid property as
requested. Staff has attached Resolution 7406 for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Roberts, Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Aerial View
3. 2008 Concept Plan for Retail Mall
4. Proposed Preliminary Plat
5. Proposed Preliminary Plat (with buildings and parking)
6. Resolution 899-09 (Planning Commission)
7. City Council Resolution 7406
8. Preliminary Plat date stamped 1-21-09 (11x17)
Zoning Map
*Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned
R-1, Single Family Residential
Mermaid
Ae rial View
N
Highway 10
County
Road H
Mermaid Hotel
2008 Concept Plan for Retail Mall
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 899-09
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE MERMAID, 2200 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MA2009-001
WHEREAS, Charlie and Dan Hall, representing the Mermaid, have requested
approval of a revised preliminary plat for a major subdivision at 2200 County Highway 10,
legally-described as follows:
Units 1 and 2 and adjacent common element in Common Interest Community Plat of
Common Interest Community Number 598, Mermaid Hotel and Entertainment Center
Condominium, described as follows: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, MERMAID ADDITION,
lying southerly and easterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the most
easterly corner of said Lot 1, thence North 34 degrees 38 minutes 17 seconds West,
along the northeasterly line of said Lot 1, at a distance of 280.00 feet to the point of
beginning; thence South 55 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 123.00
feet; thence South 2 degrees 13 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 345.80 feet to the
southeasterly line of said Lot 1 and there terminating.
WHEREAS, The above-described land is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development and
is designated as Regional Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, Charlie and Dan Hall have submitted a revised Preliminary Plat for a major
subdivision of the property that would combine the two existing lots and would create two new
lots; and,
WHEREAS, the community development staff have reviewed the preliminary plat and
finds that it satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements as articulated in Titles 1100 and
1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to
a park dedication fee that the City Council will determine; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is not in a designated wetland area; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents about these requests
1. Staff Report
2. Preliminary Plat date stamped January 21, 2009
3. Zoning Map
Resolution 899-09
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat date stamped January 21, 2009 submitted by
Charlie and Dan Hall, representing the Mermaid, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall arrange to have an acceptable Title Commitment provided to the
City Attorney for review prior to the final approval of the subdivision by the City Council.
2. The applicant shall satisfy any additional requirements made by the City Attorney in a
plat opinion.
3. The applicant shall satisfy all the requirements of the City Building Official/Fire Marshall
about no openings between buildings along common property lines, or sign a “Hold
Harmless Agreement” that will be recorded as part of the property records with Ramsey
County.
4. If required by the City Council, the applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in an
amount determined by the City Council.
5. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than 6 months after the date of
City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the Preliminary Plat approval will
become null and void.
BE IT FINALLY 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 4th day of February 2009.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kenneth Roberts
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION 7406
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPERTY AT
2200 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10 (THE MERMAID);
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE MA2009-001
WHEREAS, Charlie and Dan Hall, representing the Mermaid, have requested
approval of a preliminary plat for a major subdivision for the property at 2200 County
Highway 10, legally-described as follows:
Units 1 and 2 and adjacent common element in Common Interest Community Plat of
Common Interest Community Number 598, Mermaid Hotel and Entertainment Center
Condominium, described as follows: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, MERMAID ADDITION,
lying southerly and easterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the most
easterly corner of said Lot 1, thence North 34 degrees 38 minutes 17 seconds West,
along the northeasterly line of said Lot 1, at a distance of 280.00 feet to the point of
beginning; thence South 55 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 123.00
feet; thence South 2 degrees 13 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 345.80 feet to the
southeasterly line of said Lot 1 and there terminating.
WHEREAS, The above-described land is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development and
is designated as Regional Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, Charlie and Dan Hall have submitted a Preliminary Plat for a major
subdivision which combines the two existing lots and creates two new lots; and,
WHEREAS, the community development staff have reviewed the preliminary plat and
finds that it satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements as articulated in Titles 1100 and
1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the major subdivision may
be subject to a park dedication fee to be determined by the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is not within a designated wetland area; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council approved the Mermaid Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Agreement on October 10, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council approved a preliminary plat and a PUD
amendment for the Mermaid PUD on October 15, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this request on February 4, 2009 and
examined the potential adverse effects that could result from such an property subdivision,
and recommended approval; and,
Resolution 7406
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
about these requests:
1. Staff Report 4. Aerial View
2. Preliminary Plat dated 1-21-09 5. Site Plan
3. Zoning Map
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves
the Preliminary Plat date stamped January 21, 2009 as submitted by Charlie and Dan Hall for
the Mermaid property subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall satisfy all requirements made by the City Attorney as stated in the plat
opinion.
2. If required by the City Council, the applicant shall pay a park dedication fee to the City of
Mounds View in an amount set by the City Council.
3. If necessary, the applicant shall submit to the City, in writing, their proposal for dealing with
the TIF District and Minimum Assessment Agreement issues. Any changes to the TIF plan
or the Minimum Assessment Agreement must be approved by the City.
4. The applicant shall either meet the fire code requirements in regards to no openings
between buildings along common property lines, or sign a “Hold Harmless Agreement” that
will be recorded as part of the property records with Ramsey County.
5. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than 6 months after the date of
approval of the preliminary plat, or the Preliminary Plat approval will become invalid.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council hereby
rescinds its approval of Resolution 7340 (adopted October 15, 2008).
Adopted this 9th day of February 2009.
_____________________________________
Joe Flaherty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
James Ericson, Clerk-Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No.7B
Meeting Date:February 9, 2009
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
From:Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer
Item Title/Subject:Resolution 7408 Granting Preliminary Approval to
the Draft Local Surface Water Management Plan
and Authorizing Distribution to Review Agencies
Background:
The City is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan for submittal to the
Metropolitan Council. A requirement for the approval of the Comprehensive Plan
is that the City have an approved Local Surface Water Management Plan
(LSWMP).
On June 23, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution 7299 authorizing
Bonestroo to prepare the Local Surface Water Management Plan for the City.
On February 2, 2009 the Revised City Review Draft version of the LSWMP was
reviewed and discussed at the City Council Work Session.
Discussion:
LSWMP Revisions
During the discussion at the February 2nd City Council Work Session, a number
of specific content issues were identified by the City Council and City Staff.
These specific content issues (including the LSWMP page number) are identified
below, followed by a summary of how the issue was addressed in the Agency
Review Draft LSWMP:
Page 14 – As the City does not have a completed Wellhead Protection Plan,
when are they required to begin preparing a plan?
LSWMP Revision: Information regarding the schedule set by the
Minnesota Department of Health for Mounds View to initiate the
Wellhead Protection Plan process has been added.
(see attached Page 14)
February 9, 2009 Item No. 7B
Page 2
Page 14 – Figure 2.5 identifies Blue Tow Service as a Voluntary Investigation
and Cleanup (VIC) site in Mounds View. City Staff stated that Blue Tow
Service is located in Blaine.
LSWMP Revision: Figure 2.5 was updated to remove the reference to
Blue Tow Service and identify two VIC sites on the former Bridges Golf
Course, now the Medtronic Mounds View Campus.
(see attached Page 14)
Page 33 – Has Mounds View completed an Impaired Waters Report for any
of the impaired waters affecting the City, as described on Page 33?
LSWMP Revision: To date, Mounds View has not prepared an
Impaired Waters Report for any of the identified impaired waters
affecting the City. Table 8.3 identifies a proposed starting date for the
necessary Impaired Waters Reports of 2010.
(see attached Page 33)
Page 45 – The Storm Water Management Fund rates are reviewed annually
and the Fund balance is adequate to fund the implementation activities
identified in Table 8.3. Recommendations on Page 45 to review the adequacy
of the Storm Water Management Fund to pay for the items in Table 8.3
should be removed.
LSWMP Revision: The implementation action in Table 8.1 and
described in Section 8.2, recommending review of the Storm Water
Management Fund to determine its adequacy to finance the activities
identified in Table 8.3 in has been removed. Implementation Activity
#15 on Table 8.3, recommending a review of the Storm Water
Management Fund, has also been removed.
(see attached Pages 45 and 47)
Page 47 – Are the implementation activities in Table 8.3 numbered in order of
importance or priority?
LSWMP Revision: Text in Section 8.4 has been added to clarify that
the implementation activities identified in Table 8.3 are not numbered
in order of importance or priority; rather they are numbered for
reference purposes only.
(see attached Pages 46 and 47)
February 9, 2009 Item No. 7B
Page 3
Map 1 – The color of the Subwatershed Districts shown on the map doesn’t
match the color in the map legend. More detail regarding the storm sewer
structure types should be provided in the map legend. The date of the aerial
photo shown on Map 1 should be identified.
LSWMP Revision: The revisions to Map 1 have been incorporated into
the map included in the Agency Review Draft LSWMP. The revised
Map 1 is not attached to this Staff Report because Map 1 will ultimately
be updated further to meet the content requirements of the City’s MS4
Map, per discussion at the February 2nd Work Session.
The Revised City Review Draft LSWMP has been updated to address the
revisions identified above and is re-titled as the Agency Review Draft LSWMP.
Due to the relatively small number of the revisions to the LSWMP, the entire
Agency Review Draft LSWMP is not attached to this Staff Report. Rather, only
the revised pages from the Agency Review Draft LSWMP as discussed above
are provided as an attachment to this Staff Report.
LSWMP Approval and Adoption Schedule
A summary of the anticipated schedule for the review and approval process of
the LSWMP is as follows:
LSWMP
Anticipated Schedule for Review and Approval
Date Action
x Feb. 9, 2009 City Council authorizes distribution for agency review
x Feb. 11, 2009 Distribute LSWMP to Rice Creek Watershed District,
Ramsey County, and Metropolitan Council for review
x Early Apr., 2009 Receive agency review comments
x Early Apr., 2009 Respond to agency review comments and prepare final
LSWMP
x Apr. 22, 2009 Receive approval of final LSWMP from RCWD
x Apr. 27, 2009 City Council adoption of final LSWMP
x Apr. 28, 2009 Final adopted LSWMP sent to Metropolitan Council
In discussions with RCWD Administrator Doug Thomas, it is the intent of the
RCWD to review and comment on the LSWMP in less than the maximum 60 day
review period, allowing the City sufficient time to respond to RCWD comments
and finalize the LSWMP according to the schedule above.
February 9, 2009 Item No. 7B
Page 4
The City has received an extension from the Metropolitan Council to May 1, 2009
for the approval of their Comprehensive Plan. It is seen from the schedule
shown above that approval of the LSWMP is anticipated to be compatible with
the schedule for the overall Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation:
Resolution 7408 has been prepared in accordance with the LSWMP approval
and adoption schedule identified above. The Resolution is attached to the Staff
Report for consideration by the City Council.
City Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution 7408
granting preliminary approval and authorizing distribution of the Agency Review
Draft LSWMP to the applicable agencies for review.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer
Attachments:
x Resolution 7408
x Revised LSWMP pages:Cover
Page 14
Page 33
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
RESOLUTION 7408
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE
LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION TO REVIEW AGENCIES
WHEREAS, Mounds View is currently updating its Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, an approved Local Surface Water Management Plan
(LSWMP) is required for approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan
Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7299 adopted by the City
Council on June 23, 2008, Mounds View retained Bonestroo for the purpose of
preparing a new LSWMP for the City; and
WHEREAS, Bonestroo has completed a draft version of the
LSWMP and has reviewed it with both City Staff and Council; and
WHEREAS, per Minnesota State Statute 103B the City must
submit its draft LSWMP for review and comment by the Metropolitan Council and
other agencies prior to final approval and adoption by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1.The “Agency Review Draft” version of the LSWMP, prepared
by Bonestroo dated February 2009 is preliminarily approved.
2.Authorization is given to distribute the Agency Review Draft
version of the LSWMP to the Metropolitan Council and other
agencies for review as required by Minnesota State Statute.
Resolution 7408
Page 2
Adopted this 12th day of February 2009.
____________________________________
Joe Flaherty, Mayor
(ATTEST)
____________________________________
James Ericson, Clerk–Administrator
(SEAL)
Report
Local Surface Water Management Plan
Agency Review Draft
City of Mounds View
February 2009
Project Number 000435-08135-0
City of Mounds View Page 14
Local Surface Water Management Plan 435-08-135
2.12 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
Mounds View has soils that are prone to high infiltration rates and aquifers that are considered as
having moderate sensitivity; therefore when considering the use of infiltration BMPs the City
should evaluate the sites for existing contamination. The contamination of groundwater is very
difficult to rectify, often times requires that installation of expensive treatment systems to purify
the water for drinking purposes and in extreme cases the contamination of the groundwater
could lead to potential health related problems.
Mounds View contains two sites (ID #VP20530 and ID #20531) that the MPCA has designated
for the Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program. According to the MPCA, both of these
sites were identified in 2005 as part of the former Bridges Golf Course, now Medtronic Mounds
View Campus. The Medtronic parcel which contains the two sites in the VIC Program is identified
on Figure 2.5.
The Minnesota Department of Health maintains a phasing list that determines the order in which
water suppliers will be brought into the wellhead protection planning process. Currently the City
does not have a Wellhead Protection Plan, but according to the phasing list it is expected that the
City begin the development of a wellhead protection plan in late 2009.
Mounds View operates five municipal wells within its jurisdictional boundaries. The City will follow
the guidance provided in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual and by the Minnesota Department of
Health on evaluating stormwater infiltration projects to address groundwater protection concerns.
Figure 2.5 – Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program Map
City of Mounds View Page 33
Local Surface Water Management Plan 435-08-135
5.Prepare an impaired waters report. This report will address the results of the impaired waters
evaluation along with a determination of whether the City should make changes to the
Mounds View SWPPP to reduce the impact from the City’s MS4 stormwater discharge to each
impaired water.
6.The City will incorporate the changes identified in the impaired waters report into the City’s
SWPPP and be reported through the annual reporting process.
To date, Mounds View has not prepared an impaired waters report for any of the identified
impaired waters identified in Table 6.2. Table 8.3 identifies a proposed starting date for the
necessary impaired waters reports of 2010. Discussion about the directives for impaired waters
and ultimately TMDL studies addressing the impairments for the waterbodies listed in Table 6.2 is
presented in the Implementation Section (Section 8) of this LSWMP. Section 8 identifies how
Mounds View intends to be involved in the directives identified above and the City’s strategy for
implementing these directives.
6.5 NPDES PERMITTING PROCESS
The MPCA has designated the City of Mounds View as an NPDES Phase II MS4 community (MN
Rules 7090). Mounds View received permit coverage in 2003, however due to a court hearing the
MPCA was required to revise the MS4 permit and cities were required to update their SWPPP to
comply with the new permit requirements by June 1, 2006. The MPCA approved the revised MS4
permit and they granted approval to continue coverage under the general permit on May 6,
2008. The permit application outlined Mounds View’s SWPPP, which addresses six minimum
control measures:
1.Public education
2.Public involvement
3.Illicit discharge detection and elimination
4.Construction site runoff control
5.Post-construction runoff control
6.Pollution prevention in municipal operations
The City’s SWPPP contains several best management practices within each of the listed control
measures. These were identified using a self-evaluation and input process with City staff. Mounds
View’s current SWPPP document can be found on the City’s website: www.ci.mounds-
view.mn.us/. The City’s permit application and SWPPP were submitted to the MPCA and MS4
permit coverage was officially extended on May 6, 2008.
Many of the goals and policies discussed in this LSWMP are directly related to requirements listed
in the NPDES program. As a result, the Goals and Policies Section of this plan repeatedly
references items listed in the City’s SWPPP. Per the requirements of the MS4 Permit, the City will
review their SWPPP and update as necessary on an annual basis.
6.6 COMPARISON OF REGULATORY STANDARDS
The City is committed to coordinating project review efforts to facilitate the RCWD permit
process. As identified in Figure 3.1, Mounds View is entirely within the boundary of the RCWD;
therefore their permit process will be the main catalyst that drives natural and water resource
management within the City and will be governed using their most current regulatory standards.
The governing document for these standards is the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules, adopted
February 13, 2008.
City of Mounds View Page 45
Local Surface Water Management Plan 435-08-135
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW – LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 8 – Implementation
8.1 OFFICIAL CONTROLS
From the assessment of the City’s official controls presented in Table 6.1, Table 8.1 identifies the
implementation actions necessary to address Mounds View’s current regulatory requirements.
Table 8.1 – City Code Implementation Actions
City Code Implementation Action
Post Construction Site Runoff Control Review and update Chapter 1302 as necessary
Illicit Discharge and Illicit Connection Section 907.06 is not adequate, create a new ordinance
Wetlands and Public Waters Review and update Chapter 1010 as necessary
As stated previously, after adoption of this LSWMP, the City will need to update the
implementation actions identified in Table 8.1 to achieve consistency with the RCWD WMP and
Rules. Per State statute, the City must complete this implementation step within 180 days after
adoption of this plan.
8.2 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Mounds View’s existing surface water management system is a major investment for the City.
The ongoing maintenance of this existing surface water management system is critical to
protecting this valuable investment. The City’s surface water system maintenance responsibilities
and the schedule for these responsibilities are included in Table 8.2:
Table 8.2 - Surface water System Maintenance Schedule
BMP Maintenance Schedule
Street sweeping Twice annually
Catch basins Inspected every 5 years, cleaned and repaired as needed
Trunk storm sewer Televised and jetted on a scheduled rotation
Stormwater ponds Inspected every 5 years, cleaned as needed
Stormwater pond inlets/outlets Inspected every 5 years, cleaned as needed
Structural treatment devices, including
sump manholes and grit chambers Inspected annually, cleaned as needed
Generally, surface water system maintenance in Mounds View is funded by the City’s Storm
Water Management Fund. The City’s Storm Water Management Fund rates are reviewed annually
(see City Policy 37) to verify that the Fund balance is adequate to fund the surface water
management implementation activities identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
City of Mounds View Page 46
Local Surface Water Management Plan 435-08-135
8.2.1 STORMWATER POND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
In addition to the City’s current inspection procedures for City maintained stormwater ponding
basins; City staff has expressed interest in developing a Stormwater Pond Maintenance Program.
The cost for developing this program is included implementation item in Table 8.3 below. The
intent of this program is to establish specific guidelines for stormwater pond maintenance,
including:
Design volume estimation
Tracking sediment deposition
Sediment removal triggers
Sediment disposal process
8.3 NPDES IMPLEMENTATION
As discussed in Section 6.5, the City of Mounds View is designated as an NPDES Phase II MS4
community. As part of Mounds View’s application to obtain permit coverage, the City’s
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) identifies many specific implementation items
related to surface water management in Mounds View. While it is not the City’s intent to
reproduce the specific implementation items from their SWPPP in this LSWMP (a copy of the
current SWPPP can be found on the City’s website), the specific items identified in the SWPPP
can be lumped into implementation categories, including:
General ongoing SWPPP implementation items, including: system inspections, educational
materials, website updates, etc.
Ordinance updates, specifically:
Construction Site and Land Disturbance Runoff Control
Post Construction Site Runoff Control
Illicit Discharge and Illicit Connection
Plan review procedures and standards
NPDES Annual Report
Surface Water System Map
The cost for implementing the items listed above will vary from year to year, but for budgeting
purposes, estimated costs for these items is included in Table 8.3.
8.4 PRIORITY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
Based on the assessment of the City’s current surface water management program and the
implementation items in the preceding Sections, a list of system improvement activities has been
identified. The system improvements identified range from those being driven by regulatory
requirements, to others driven more by the functionality of the City’s regional surface water
management system. Table 8.3 presents a summary of recommended surface water
management activities. The budget amounts included in this table should be considered
planning-level cost estimates, with more specific cost estimates to be determined as the project
or activity approaches.
For capital improvement projects, the City will continue to rely on its detailed 5-year capital
improvement planning process to schedule and plan for funding these projects. This planning
process is updated by City staff and reviewed and approved annually by the City Council. The
activities listed in Table 8.3 will be used as a reference for particular projects and activities
specific to surface water management to be included in the capital improvement planning
City of Mounds View Page 47
Local Surface Water Management Plan 435-08-135
process. It should be noted that the activities identified in Table 8.3 are not numbered in order of
importance or priority; rather they are numbered for reference purposes only.
Table 8.3 - System Improvement Activities Listed by Activity Category
Activity
#
Activity
Category Project Description Prop.
Start
Est.
Cost
1 Capital
Improvement
Mustang Drive
Improvements
Provide overflow conveyance capacity and
additional flood storage (see Mustang Drive
Drainage Study)
2010 $28,000
2 Capital
Improvement
Greenfield Park
Culvert Replacement Replace existing entrance culvert 2010 $12,000
3 Capital
Improvement
Greenfield Park
Culvert Crossing
Improvements
Perform improvements in accordance with park
planning 2011 $20,000
4 Capital
Improvement
Greenfield Park
Judicial Ditch 1 Outlet
Modifications
Modify existing outlet configuration to improve
hydraulics and reduce flooding, and evaluate the
need for additional flood storage.
2011 $28,000
5 Capital
Improvement
Silver View Pond
Sediment Basin
Hydraulic function verification, regrading and
revegitation plans 2011 $21,000
6 MS4 Permit
Compliance
Annual NPDES
Reporting Writing and administering MS4 annual reports Ongoing NA
7 MS4 Permit
Compliance Surface water Map SWPPP Implementation Item: complete a map
showing City surface water system features 2009 $2,500
8 MS4 Permit
Compliance
General Inspection
and Maintenance
Program
General inspection and maintenance of the City’s
stormwater management system, including:
Bi-annual street sweeping
Ditches and storm sewer
Outfalls and stormwater ponds
Structural pollution control devices
Ongoing NA
9 MS4 Permit
Compliance Complete Staff
Training
Complete City staff training in the operation,
maintenance and inspection of the City’s storm
sewer system
Ongoing NA
10 MS4 Permit
Compliance
Illicit Discharge and
Illicit Connection
Ordinance
Create a new ordinance 2009 $5,000
11 MS4 Permit
Compliance
Post Construction Site
Runoff Control
Review and update Chapter 1302 as necessary to
comply with MPCA requirements.2009 $2,500
12 MS4 Permit
Compliance
Impaired Waters
Report
Conduct impaired waters evaluations and prepare
an impaired waters report, per BMP 7-3 (4 total)2010 $10,000
13 Agency
Compliance
Wetlands and Public
Waters Ordinance
Review and update Chapter 1010 as necessary to
comply with RCWD and Met Council requirements.2009 $2,500
14 System
Maintenance
Stormwater Pond
Maintenance Program
Develop a program to track, remove, and dispose
of sediment from existing stormwater ponds 2010 NA
8.5 POSSIBLE FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
These activities generally include coordination efforts other agencies or potential future activities
that have yet to be finalized. These future implementation activities identified below are relevant
Item No: 7C
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Clerk-Admin istrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 7409 Authorization to Contract with Evergreen
Land Services to Acquire ROW for Traffic Signal Installation at
SLR and County Road H.
Introduction:
As was communicated at the Council’s January 12 and January 26 meetings, Ramsey
County has received funding to cover the cost of the installation of traffic signals at the
intersection of County Road H and Silver Lake Road. The construction would be completed
without any financial participation from either New Brighton or Mounds View, however the
project necessitates additional right of way at three of the four corners—two in Mounds View
and one in New Brighton. County policy dictates that the City is responsible for such
acquisitions.
Background:
The cities of New Brighton and Mounds View along with the Mounds View School District
have been working cooperatively with Ramsey County to have traffic signals installed at the
intersection of Silver Lake Road and County Road H. The County conducted a Traffic Signal
Justification Study in 2004 which determined the intersection did meet warrants for traffic
signals and the project was programmed for construction in 2006 or 2007. Due to
insufficient funding, the County dropped this project off their plan and suggested if the cities
provided the funding perhaps it could move forward. While the Mounds View had identified
this work in its capital improvement plan, New Brighton did not. In 2007, the cities wrote
letters to Ramsey County expressing our continued ongoing support for the project.
Discussion:
I announced to the City Council at the January 12 meeting that Ramsey County had secured
the necessary funding for this project and provided additional information on January 26 that
the cities would need to acquire the needed right of way in lieu of any other cost
participation. Because the amount of additional right of way needed is minimal, the cost to
acquire the land from the residents should also be minimal (in the neighborhood of $1,000)
however it could be a time consuming process necessitating multiple meetings and
negotiations and potential appraisals to support the offers made. In light of this, staff
obtained a quote from Evergreen Land Service, a land and right of way acquisition
consultant (whom the City has used in the past) to coordinate this process. Their quote was
$5,000, the cost of which would be shared with New Brighton. The City Council reviewed
this option at their meeting on January 26, and given present staffing deficiencies, provided
direction to move forward with Evergreen. This has been communicated to New Brighton
who will be considering the participation later this month.
Evergreen Proposal
County Rd H & Silver Lake Road
Feb 9, 2009
Page 2
Recommendation:
Given our present staffing deficiencies and the County’s desire to move forward on this
project in an expedited fashion, I recommend City Council approve the Resolution 7409, a
resolution which authorizes Evergreen Land Services to coordinate the acquisition of right of
way at the intersection of County Road H and Silver Lake Road. The resolution directs staff
to reach a satisfactory cost participation agreement with New Brighton, however the full cost
of the contract with Evergreen will be identified for administrative and documentation
purposes.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Clerk - Administrator
RESOLUTION 7409
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH EVERGREEN
LAND SERVICES TO COORDINATE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY ASSOCIATED
WITH THE RAMSEY COUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PROJECT AT
SILVER LAKE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD H
WHEREAS, Ramsey County conducted a Traffic Signal Justification Study in 2004
which determined that the intersection at Silver Lake Road and County Road H met
warrants for traffic signals; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View adopted Resolution 6604 on August 22, 2005,
which expressed support for the installation of traffic control signals at said intersection; and,
WHEREAS, in October of 2007, the City Council directed staff to forward
correspondence to the County to reiterate its support for the signal installation; and,
WHEREAS, Ramsey County notified Mounds View in January of 2009 that it had
secured funding for the installation of traffic control signals at said intersection; and,
WHEREAS, Ramsey County further notified the City that additional right of way
would be needed at three of the four corners of this intersection (two in Mounds View, one in
New Brighton) for the installation of the signal equipment; and,
WHEREAS, According to Ramsey County policy, municipalities are responsible for
acquiring any necessary right of way associated with such projects; and,
WHEREAS, Evergreen Land Services submitted a proposal dated Jan 16, 2009 to
coordinate the right of way acquisition of the three parcels in Mounds View and New Brighton
at a cost not to exceed $5,000, less recording fees and amounts paid to property owners.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council approves entering into an
agreement with Evergreen Land Services, consistent with their submitted proposal, to
coordinate the acquisition of the additional right of way in Mounds View and New Brighton,
and directs staff to reach a satisfactory cost-participation agreement with the City of New
Brighton.
Adopted this 9th day of February, 2009.
_______________________________
Joe Flaherty, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
James Ericson, Clerk - Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 8.B.
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Type of Business: Council Consent
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mark Beer, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 7407 Adopting a Modification to Sections 2.2
thru 2.4 of the City’s Purchasing Policy
Attached is Resolution 7407 adopting a modification to sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of the
City’s purchasing policy to reflect changes in Minnesota statute §471.345 regarding
uniform municipal contracting and bid laws. The statutory changes became effective on
August 1, 2008.
The statutory change increased the threshold for sealed bids and advertising to
$100,000. The legislature increases this limit from time to time to recognize that things
cost more and that governments should not incur additional advertising costs and
administrative costs because they do. The proposed changes to the purchasing policy
reflect those changes.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Mark Beer, Finance Director
RESOLUTION NO. 7407
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Adopting a Modification to Sections 2.2 thru 2.4 of the City’s Purchasing Policy
WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain a purchasing policy that is up-to-date with
Minnesota State Statutes; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota statute 471.345 was amended by the legislature to increase the
threshold for bid requirements; and
WHEREAS, the policy in sections 2.2 thru 2.4 on uniform municipal contracting would need
to be modified to reflect this amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has discussed the proposed changes and wishes to include
the modifications in the City’s purchasing policy.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View
that the City’s purchasing policy, Sections 2.2 thru 2.4 on uniform municipal contracting,
will be modified to reflect the attached wording.
Adopted this 9th day of February 2009.
__________________________
Joe Flaherty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Jim Ericson, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 08C
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant City Clerk-Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 7410 Granting the Great Lakes Shipwreck
Preservation Society a One Day Charitable Gambling
Permit to Conduct a Raffle on February 28, 2009, at
The Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center in
Mounds View.
The Great Lakes Shipwreck Preservation Society (based in Fridley, Minnesota) held a raffle at
the Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center last year (February 23, 2008). As it was done last
year, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Preservation Society would like to hold a raffle again this year
at the Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center on February 28, 2009. The Great Lakes
Shipwreck Preservation Society was formed as an instrument to restore and stabilize shipwrecks
of the Great Lakes region. All supporting documentation in regard to their non-profit status is
on file with the Minnesota State Gambling Control Board and the Minnesota Secretary of State’s
Office.
Recommendation:
Approve attached Resolution 7410.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 7410
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION GRANTING THE GREAT LAKES SHIPWRECK PRESERVATION
SOCIETY A ONE DAY PERMIT TO CONDUCT CHARITABLE GAMBLING (RAFFLE)
AT THE MERMAID ENTERAINMENT AND EVENT CENTER IN MOUNDS VIEW
WHEREAS, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Preservation Society has requested that the
Council allow them to conduct charitable gambling at The Mermaid Entertainment and
Event Center on February 28, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Gambling Control Board requires that the local unit of government
pass a resolution specifically approving or denying requests to conduct charitable
gambling; and
WHEREAS, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Preservation Society is in compliance with
all requirements of the Mounds View Municipal Code with regard to charitable gambling
regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby authorize the Great Lakes Shipwreck Preservation Society to conduct charitable
gambling at The Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center on February 28, 2009.
Adopted this 9th day of February, 2009.
______________________________
Joe Flaherty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
James Ericson, Clerk-Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 8A
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: __________
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will
expire on December 31, 2009. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of
insurance. Those companies that are “new” include applicants that have never been
licensed with the City or they may have been licensed with the City in the past, but were not
licensed in 2008. The majority of the licenses are renewals, so at a minimum, they were
licensed in 2008. The type of license they are applying for follows the company name.
Associated Mechanical HVAC Renewal
Bob Pankan & Sons Concrete and
Masonry, Inc.
Masonry New
Fireside Heath & Home HVAC Renewal
Four Seasons Tree Care, Inc. Tree Trimming/Removal Renewal
Gilbert Mechanical Contractors HVAC Renewal
Superior Heating, Air Cond. & Electric HVAC Renewal
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
TYPES OF CONTRACTS AND PURCHASES
2.1 UNIFORM MUNICIPAL CONTRACTING LAW, CHAPTER 471.345
It shall be the policy of the City of Mounds View that the Uniform Municipal
Contracting Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 471.345 shall be the policy of the city.
Changes in this law will automatically become the policy of the city. City policy
may be more restrictive than State Law, but may not be less restrictive. Records of
quotes and bids shall be retained for at least one year after the completion of the
contract or purchase or until the annual audit for the year of the purchase is
completed, whichever is longer.
2.2 MAJOR PURCHASES
Sealed bids shall be obtained by public notice for major purchases with final award
by the City Council. From 2009 2002 onward, this shall be for purchases over
$100,000 $50,000, per Chapter 471.345.
2.3 INTERMEDIATE PURCHASES
Three or more written quotes shall be obtained for intermediate purchases with final
award by the City Council. From 2009 2002 onward, this shall be for purchases
between $25,000 $5,000 and $100,000 $50,000.
2.4 SMALL PURCHASES
Purchases may be made by at least two written quotes when possible, or in the open
market, at the discretion of the Department Head. From 2009 2002 onward, this
shall be for purchases less than $25,000 $5,000.
Department Heads shall advise the City Administrator prior to purchases between
$1,000 and $5,000. Purchases between $2,500 and $5,000 shall be approved by the
City Council if they were not part of the annual budget.
Minutes reflect changes made by Mayor Flaherty, Councilmember Hull, Councilmember Gunn, Clerk -Administrator Ericson and Assistant City Clerk -Administrator Crane
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
January 12, 2009 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:01 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Flaherty, Stigney, Hull, Mueller, Gunn 16
17
NOT PRESENT: None. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
A. Monday, January 12, 2009 City Council Agenda. 21
22
Council Member Mueller advised that a resident has indicated he may be late arriving due to the 23
weather conditions and would like to make comment on Item 7B. She requested that Item 7C be 24
considered before Item 7B to provide that opportunity. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Gunn. To Approve the Monday, January 12, 2009 agenda as 27
revised to consider Item 7C before Item 7B. 28
29
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 30
31
5. PUBLIC INPUT 32
33
None. 34
35
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 36
37
None. 38
39
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 40
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing -2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. 41
Resolution 7393, Giving Preliminary Approval to the 2008 Comprehensive 42
Plan Update and Authorizing City Staff to Distribute the Updated Plan to 43
Adjacent and Affected Governmental Units. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 2
Community Development Director Roberts presented the staff report detailing the history of the 1
Comprehensive Plan update and the Planning Commission’s support for the City Council to 2
approve the Comprehensive Plan update. Community Development Director Roberts advised 3
that as part of the update process, which is required by the Met Council, the Plan now contains 4
more information, updated statistics, and updated references to the street and utility program. 5
However, most of the goals and policies of the City remain. Community Development Director 6
Roberts explained that since the December Work Session, staff has made the final housekeeping 7
changes to the Plan, none being substantial but clerical or grammatical in nature. Staff 8
recommends the Council approve the draft resolution to give preliminary approval to the 9
Comprehensive Plan and authorize staff to distribute the updated Plan to adjacent and affected 10
governmental units. He noted the deadline for the Comprehensive Plan update is May 1, 2009, 11
and it is anticipated final Council action will occur in April. 12
13
Mayor Flaherty opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. 14
15
Hearing no public comment, Mayor Flaherty closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. 16
17
At the request of Council Member Mueller, Community Development Director Roberts 18
acknowledged the people who had worked on the Comprehensive Plan update: Mayor Rob 19
Marty, Councilmembers Roger Stigney, Al Hull, Joe Flaherty, and Carol Mueller; 20
Planning Commissioners Gery Stevenson, Jean Miller, Gary Meehlhause, Keith Cramblit, Sherry 21
Gunn, Todd Lang, and Mary Kay Walsh-Kaczmarek; Economic Development Commissioners 22
Tom Field, Dr. Greg Belting, Torri Johnson, Jerry Jaker, Jason Helgemoe, Jackie Entsminger, 23
Gary Meehlhause, Jennifer Wagner, and Daniel Larson; Parks, Recreation & Forest 24
Commissioners Jerry Kunz, Gerald Arel, Dave Long, Darren Peterson, Dale Aukee, Cindy Palm, 25
and John Kroeger; City Staff: Clerk-Administrator Jim Ericson, Community Development 26
Director Ken Roberts, Finance Director Mark Beer, (former) Public Works Director Greg Lee, 27
Planning Associate Heidi Heller; Housing Inspector Jeremiah Anderson, Economic Development 28
Specialist Heidi Steinmertz, Engineering Technician Jim Hess, Permit Technician Barb Benesch, 29
and Engineering Intern Ryan Johnson; Comprehensive Task Force Members Al Hull, Gary 30
Meehlhause, Keith Cramblit, Mary Kay Walsh-Kaczmarek, Jerry Kunz, John Kroeger, Laurie 31
Shoop, Mari Scotch, Mike Haubrich, Nate Bjerke, and Val Amundsen, GIS Consultant MFRA, 32
Inc.; and, Engineering Consultant Bonestroo. 33
34
Community Development Director Roberts stated his appreciation to all staff who helped and 35
especially to Planning Associate Heller who worked the last month to put the final Plan together, 36
clarifying the maps, and finishing text changes. 37
38
Council Member Mueller asked if the Comprehensive Plan will be posted on the City’s website. 39
Clerk-Administrator Ericson stated the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety may be too large to 40
post on the web site. In the past, the City has posted an executive summary with an attached 41
representation of the existing and future land use maps. He recommended the same be done with 42
this Plan version. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 3
Council Member Mueller asked if a copy of the Plan will be available at City Hall. Clerk-1
Administrator Erickson advised copies will be available at City Hall, the library, and on CD if 2
they want to take it home. He stated staff will work with people to assure they have an 3
opportunity to read the Plan. 4
5
Council Member Mueller stated a phenomenal job has been done on this Plan and it used a 6
logical progression that was easy to understand. She noted that on Page 8, Appendix E-1, 7
Emergency Response Plan, the name of the former Public Works Director needs to be replaced 8
with an alternate emergency response lead. Planning Associate Heller explained the name of the 9
former Public Works Director may be contained in several locations of the Comprehensive Plan 10
since the work was done last year. She advised that when the Plan is finalized, a new contact 11
person’s name will be inserted. 12
13
Council Member Mueller noted on Page 18, Current Education Programs, it indicates the 14
community newsletter is issued six times a year; however, it is now issued four times a year. She 15
also noted that there may be other programs that can be included in this section such as the 16
demonstration and landscaping projects that are currently running on cable television and other 17
programs done in conjunction with the Rice Creek Watershed District. 18
19
Council Member Stigney asked about Appendix 7-3, referencing the amount received for fiscal 20
disparities and asked if the potential unallocation by the Governor will affect this text. Finance 21
Director Beer advised it would not affect fiscal disparities. 22
23
Mayor Flaherty thanked staff and all the Commissions for their work on this document. He read 24
the purpose statement of a Comprehensive Plan as detailed on Page 1-3: “To guide future 25
development and redevelopment in an orderly manner, define proper functional relations between 26
different types of land users, help coordinate private and public sector decision, encourage 27
orderliness and economy in City Government, and provide a sense of City identity.” Mayor 28
Flaherty explained it was a State law requirement for the City to update the Comprehensive Plan 29
every ten years. When development occurs, it has to conform to this Plan. 30
31
Community Development Director Roberts advised of a typographical error on Page 6-37, last 32
sentence addressing runways at the airport, next to the last line to change the word “and” to the 33
word “any.” This correction will be made before the Plan is distributed. 34
35
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 7393, Giving 36
Preliminary Approval to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update and Authorizing City Staff to 37
Distribute the Updated Plan to Adjacent and Affected Governmental Units. 38
39
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 40
41
C. Resolution 7403, Authorizing a Step Increase for Nate Behlen, Mounds View 42
Public Works Employee. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 4
Assistant Clerk-Administrator Crane presented the recommendation of Supervisor Steve 1
Dazenski to approve a step increase wage adjustment for Public Works Employee Nate Behlen. 2
She apologized that this request was not considered in October of 2008 as it should have been. If 3
approved, the increase from Level B to Level C would be effective October 14, 2008. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 7403, 6
Authorizing a Step Increase for Nate Behlen, Mounds View Public Works Employee. 7
8
Council Member Mueller referenced the Supervisor’s write up for this employee indicating Mr. 9
Behlen has more than satisfactorily performed in this position and done a good job of taking on 10
other challenging projects in light of the fact that Mounds View does not have a Public Works 11
Director at this time. 12
13
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 14
15
B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 816, an Ordinance Amending 16
the Mounds View City Code about Signage (ROLL CALL VOTE). 17
18
Community Development Director Roberts detailed the past review of this ordinance amendment 19
addressing signs with dynamic display and the revisions that were made to the language at the 20
request of the Council. It was noted the dynamic sign display was changed to a minimum time of 21
10 seconds. Staff recommends approval of the second reading, adoption, and that an ordinance 22
summary be published. 23
24
Mayor Flaherty opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. 25
26
Dan Holm, representing the Mermaid, stated he spoke with Mayor Flaherty about this ordinance 27
and it is nice to see the City take a stand and realize how important advertising is to businesses. 28
He complimented staff on the language contained in this ordinance. 29
30
Hearing no additional public comment, Mayor Flaherty closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. 31
32
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Hull. To Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 816, an 33
Ordinance Amending the Mounds View City Code about Signage. 34
35
Council Member Mueller referenced Page 25, Subdivision 9, Dynamic Display Signs, Item c, 36
Standards, #1, and stated her understanding there will not be a flashing image or words that flash 37
repetitively. Community Development Director Roberts stated that is correct. 38
39
Council Member Mueller noted that Page 26, Item d, #1, indicates again that the message content 40
can move into the sign but not be flashing on and off. She stated she supports not allowing 41
flashing video images. Council Member Mueller referenced Page 27, Subdivision 5, indicating 42
that background images are displayed for a minimum of 10 seconds and questioned whether 10 43
second fixed messages may be too long considering the number of stoplights and speed of traffic 44
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 5
on County Road 10. She indicated she is willing to try this but wondered if it could be reduced 1
to 7 seconds for signs located on internal roadways where the speed of traffic is slower. 2
3
Council Member Gunn stated CVS usually sets its dynamic display sign at 12-15 seconds 4
because they found 7 seconds was too fast. She noted the Holiday sign flashes and has 2-3 5
seconds between messages. She stated support for trying 10 seconds, noting the ordinance can 6
be amended, if needed. 7
8
Council Member Stigney stated he is comfortable with 10 seconds but was also comfortable with 9
12 seconds. He asked about the definition of “temporary sign.” Community Development 10
Director Roberts explained it is a sign that is easily moved and removed from the site. 11
12
Council Member Stigney asked when a temporary sign becomes permanent, noting there are 13
some year round signs in residential areas. Planning Associate Heller advised that each business, 14
commercial, industrial or multi-residential tenant can have three temporary sign permits per 15
calendar year and each is good for 21 days. The maximum size is 48 square feet. A temporary 16
sign is not allowed in residential zones but a home based business can get a permit for a small 2 17
x 4 foot sign. 18
19
Mayor Flaherty stated any sign smaller than 2 x 4 feet does not require a permit and can be in 20
place indefinitely. 21
22
Council Member Stigney asked if sandwich boards can be placed on a sidewalk. Community 23
Development Director Roberts stated they cannot be placed on a sidewalk or public property. 24
25
Mayor Flaherty noted reference in the staff report that an ordinance amendment is needed to the 26
Zoning Code. Community Development Director Roberts stated that ordinance amendment will 27
be presented to the Council within the next 45 days. 28
29
Mayor Flaherty stated the issue of inoperable signs had been discussed, noting the ordinance 30
indicates, “within one hour or as soon as reasonably possible from City notification.” He stated 31
that he would not find it reasonable if it took 3 days. He stated the biggest dynamic display sign 32
in Mounds View is the Mermaid location sign and that owner had indicated their sign used 33
holiday images during Christmas. It was noted the Code does allow for animation or movement 34
that floats in and out, or soft transitions, but not flashing images. Mayor Flaherty noted the City 35
Hall sign is set at 2-3 seconds so it will have to be changed to conform to the Ordinance. 36
37
Council Member Stigney asked about the brightness of the dynamic sign. Community 38
Development Director Roberts explained that an earlier version had contained language about 39
brightness but the City does not own a light meter or have trained staff to measure light so 40
including that type of language would be a bit subjective. He stated that during his research, he 41
could not find a good example of language to define the brightness of a dynamic sign or to 42
control it. Mayor Flaherty noted Item e addresses the need for signs installed after December 31, 43
2008, to contain an ambient light meter. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 6
Council Member Mueller asked how the City would notify local sign owners of the new rules 1
and how much time they would have to conform. Community Development Director Roberts 2
explained that once the ordinance is adopted, published, and into effect, staff will mail all 3
operators of dynamic signs a copy of the ordinance and give them 10 or 30 days to come into 4
conformance with the performance standards. 5
6
Council consensus was reached to allow 30 days to reach compliance and rather than mailing the 7
new rules, staff will drop it off so they can network with that business and/or sign owner to 8
assure it gets to the responsible party, should there be questions. 9
10
ROLL CALL: Stigney/Hull/Mueller/Gunn/Flaherty. 11
12
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13
14
(Note: See page 8 for motion to authorize publication by summary.) 15
16
8. CONSENT AGENDA 17
18
Councilmember Mueller asked to remove Item D. Mayor Flaherty asked to remove Item A. 19
20
A. Resolution 7400, Establishing Parking Regulations for Red Oak Drive from 21
County Road 10 to Long Lake Road. 22
B. Resolution 7402, Authorizing a Transfer of a Restaurant Business License 23
from Domino’s LLC., to Hat Trick Pizza, Inc. (doing business as Domino’s 24
Pizza) located at 2548 County Highway 10. 25
C. Resolution 7394, Ramsey County GIS Users Group Joint Powers Agreement. 26
D. Resolution 7398, Accepting the County Road 10 Trail, Segments 9 & 10 27
Project and Authorizing Final Payment. 28
E. Resolution 7399, Accepting the 2008 Street Maintenance Project and 29
Authorizing Final Payment. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Mueller. To Approve the Consent Agenda B, C, and E. 32
33
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 34
35
A. Resolution 7400, Establishing Parking Regulations for Red Oak Drive from 36
County Road 10 to Long Lake Road. 37
38
Mayor Flaherty stated the Council has discussed this parking regulation previously but he would 39
like it read for the viewing audience. 40
41
Clerk-Administrator Ericson read Resolution 7400. 42
43
Mayor Flaherty noted that Red Oak Drive is partly funded through State Aid funds. Upon 44
adoption of this resolution, there will be no parking from County Road 10 to Hillview Road on 45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 7
either side of the road. Parking will be allowed only on the west side of Red Oak Drive from 1
Hillview Road to Long Lake Road. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Mueller. To Approve Resolution 7400, Establishing Parking 4
Regulations for Red Oak Drive from County Road 10 to Long Lake Road. 5
6
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7
8
D. Resolution 7398, Accepting the County Road 10 Trail, Segments 9 & 10 9
Project and Authorizing Final Payment. 10
11
Council Member Mueller stated that a resident called her to indicate there had been problems 12
with the trail last Spring with flooding and she wanted to assure those issues had been corrected 13
prior to releasing the final payment. She stated it appears the final payment for this project is 14
actually being paid to another entity and asked for confirmation that releasing the final payment 15
releases the City from any future debt to the contractor. 16
17
Finance Director Beer advised that when this contract was executed, the contractor designated in 18
a signed document that payments were to go directly to the surety company. The City was 19
served with a lien so staff has been working with the surety and bond service on the amounts 20
owned and they agreed that the amount going to the surety company will pay off the 21
subcontractors who worked on this project. Finance Director Beer explained that once paid, the 22
City is not responsible for IRS or other liens a subcontractor may have. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Stigney. To Approve Resolution 7398, Accepting the County 25
Road 10 Trail, Segments 9 and 10 Project and Authorizing Final Payment. 26
27
Council Member Gunn indicated she was also concerned whether the flooding problem had been 28
fixed. Finance Director Beer stated they did additional grading and placed crushed rock to 29
address that issue. Council Member Gunn asked what would happen if it floods again after 30
making final payment. Finance Director Beer stated there have been substantial rains since the 31
crushed rock was placed and been no problem with flooding. 32
33
Mayor Flaherty stated he has not been reassured the low area has been fixed and asked whether 34
there was a warranty. Finance Director Beer stated he was not sure the City could get a warranty 35
but Mr. Ryan can be asked. He noted the repair work was discussed at the Council meeting last 36
year. 37
38
Council Member Mueller noted the company that worked on the trail is no longer in business so 39
it is not realistic to think there would be a warranty. Finance Director Beer agreed and stated the 40
City may be able to go back to the bonding company. He stated the check will not be issued until 41
the Council’s questions are satisfied. 42
43
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 8
Mayor Flaherty stated he remembers the past Council discussion but is not satisfied that the work 1
has been completed since nothing had been presented to the Council. He asked staff to contact 2
the consulting engineer to verify that fact. 3
4
AMENDMENT MOTION: Mueller. To Approve Resolution 7398, Accepting the County Road 5
10 Trail, Segments 9 and 10 Project and Authorizing Final Payment as amended to make 6
payment contingent upon final release by the City’s consultant that the flooding conditions have 7
been corrected. 8
9
Council Member Stigney referenced the January 7, 2009, letter from Bonestroo indicating that 10
Allied Blacktop has satisfactorily completed its work according to the document. Council 11
Member Stigney indicated, however, that he would not object to delaying final payment if that is 12
the desire of the Council. 13
14
AMENDMENT MOTION SECOND: Stigney. 15
16
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 17
18
B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 816, an Ordinance Amending 19
the Mounds View City Code about Signage (continued). 20
21
Clerk-Administrator Ericson requested the Council consider authorization to publish Ordinance 22
816 by summary. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Mueller. To Authorize Publishing Ordinance 816, an Ordinance 25
Amending the Mounds View City Code about Signage, by Summary. 26
27
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 30
31
Mayor Flaherty asked about claim 3650, American Engineering Testing. Clerk-Administrator 32
Ericson advised that soil borings were necessary for infiltration areas. 33
34
Council Member Gunn referenced Page 4 and asked what is dewatering. Finance Director Beer 35
explained the groundwater had to be pumped out so the watermain could be repaired. That cost 36
will be paid from the Water Fund. 37
38
Council Member Mueller referenced Page 5, the summary of funds paid to the consultant, 39
Bonestroo, of $102,335.89 and asked what length of time this billing covers. Finance Director 40
Beer advised it went through October of 2008 and Bonestroo usually bills out monthly but 41
submits the bill two months behind. 42
43
Council Member Mueller referenced Page 6, refrigeration maintenance, and asked where the 44
equipment was located and if this is a contracted service. Finance Director Beer advised it is a 45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 9
repair to the kitchen equipment at the Community Center and, given the age of the equipment, it 1
is prudent for the City to have a quarterly maintenance contract. 2
3
Council Member Mueller referenced Page 8, BSS Brother and Sons for manhole lids, and asked 4
whether they are new or replacement lids. Finance Director Beer stated he does not know but 5
will find out and notify the Council. 6
7
Council Member Gunn referenced Page 12, salt supply, and asked if the budget contains 8
adequate funds. Finance Director Beer stated it is thought there are adequate funds, noting that 9
the City has been using last year’s supplies. 10
11
Council Member Mueller referenced Page 14, maintenance agreement, and asked if it was for 12
equipment in City Hall. Finance Director Beer answered in the affirmative, explaining it covers 13
the copiers for the City Hall and Police Department. 14
15
Mayor Flaherty referenced Page 2 of the 2009 claims for the code enforcement contract. Finance 16
Director Beer explained this was a software purchase. Community Development Director 17
Roberts advised that staff started training last week and are very happy with this software 18
package, which will be a great tool. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 21
22
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25
A. December 8, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes. 26
27
The following corrections were requested: Page 2, Line 40, “…$39,000 that was taken…” Page 28
3, Line 3, “…fee should be sunset as promised to residents when it was first…” Page 6, Line 11, 29
indicate Hull seconded the motion. Line 34, “…Flaherty ______ American Tire Distributors…” 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Mueller. To Approve the December 8, 2008 City Council 32
meeting minutes as corrected. 33
34
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
11. REPORTS 37
A. Reports of Mayor and Council. 38
39
Council Member Mueller reported the Ramsey County League of Local Governments meeting is 40
Thursday, January 22, 2009. Clerk-Administrator Ericson advised that all are invited to attend. 41
42
Mayor Flaherty referenced the comments contained in the marketing report, stating they are very 43
good and he believed it would be a daunting task to separate the comments by topic. He 44
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 10
suggested these comments be discussed at the upcoming retreat and asked Council Members 1
whether they would each work on a portion to categorize the comments by topics. 2
3
The Council noted that additional categories may be needed and agreed to start with the 4
following topics: County Highway 10, Streets, Trails, Code Compliance, Crime, Housing Types, 5
and Redevelopment. The Council will also identify the number of positive and negative 6
comments. 7
8
Council Member Stigney asked whether a conflict exists with the City’s Charter if the Mayor 9
delegates this activity. Clerk-Administrator Ericson stated he would research that question and 10
let him know. 11
12
Mayor Flaherty clarified he was making a suggestion, not delegating a work task. 13
14
Council Member Stigney stated he has no objection as long as it does not conflict with the 15
Charter Commission. 16
17
The Council agreed the Council Members will submit their results to staff for tabulation, which 18
will be reviewed at the February 28, 2009, Council retreat. 19
20
B. Reports of Staff 21
1. Discussion of Restricting Right Turns from Long Lake Road onto Red 22
Oak Drive. 23
24
Clerk-Administrator Ericson stated in November of 2008 he had presented recommendations 25
from the Streets and Utilities Committee for the installation of a no right turn onto Red Oak 26
Drive from Long Lake Road. During that discussion, the Council requested traffic counts prior 27
to making a decision. On December 22, 2008, that information was presented to the Council but 28
a decision was not made whether right turns should be restricted. He asked the Council if they 29
wanted to move forward with that action or obtain public input. 30
31
Council Member Gunn stated residents of Red Oak Drive have asked how they would get to their 32
houses when returning from work if they cannot turn right. Clerk-Administrator Ericson stated it 33
involves a trade off, noting the Committee recommended restricting the right turn movement 34
during certain times of the day. 35
36
Council Member Mueller stated her support to first complete construction of the traffic calming 37
measures. Then if it is found those measures do not resolve some of the major traffic issues, the 38
Council can consider restricting right turns. Council Member Mueller stated that at this time, she 39
does not support restricting right turns in that location because she does not want to 40
inconvenience people of the community. 41
42
Mayor Flaherty stated it is an MSA street and asked if the consulting engineer looked into the 43
State’s requirements. He agreed it would be an inconvenience for residents in that area. Clerk-44
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 11
Administrator Ericson stated it is an MSA street but the City can take this action, if desired. 1
Mayor Flaherty stated his preference to wait and address this at a future date, if needed. 2
3
2. Installation of Signal Light at Silver Lake Road and County Road H. 4
5
Clerk-Administrator Ericson announced that Ramsey County will proceed with the installation of 6
signals at the intersection of Silver Lake Road and County Road H. They have funding; 7
however, need additional right-of-way at three of the four corners of this intersection. The City 8
has to acquire that right-of-way. Clerk-Administrator Ericson asked whether staff should start 9
negotiations with the two corner property owners and coordinate with New Brighton staff who 10
will enter such negotiations with the property owner for the third corner. 11
12
Council Member Mueller asked whether the City needs to offer compensation or the County 13
would reimburse the City. Clerk-Administrator Ericson stated it would be City dollars. 14
15
Mayor Flaherty noted this item has been discussed for a long time and he had asked about the 16
empirical data from that intersection. It indicated this intersection meets warrants for the 17
installation of a signal. He expressed concern with the cost to acquire right-of-way due to 18
budgetary restrictions. 19
20
Finance Director Beer explained that at one time the City had budgeted $212,000 for this project; 21
however, it had been reallocated. 22
23
Clerk-Administrator Ericson stated staff will provide additional information for Council’s 24
consideration. 25
26
3. Updates. 27
28
Clerk-Administrator Ericson announced that the Chamber of Commerce Gala will be held on 29
February 7, 2009. He stated the cost is $70 per person and in the past some staff members had 30
attended but it is not known whether anyone on staff is available this year. 31
32
Clerk-Administrator Ericson advised that both the staff retreat and Home and Garden Show in 33
Blaine are scheduled on Saturday, February 28, 2009. 34
35
Clerk-Administrator Ericson stated the Public Works Director position will be advertised in the 36
newspaper and it is expected the City will receive a good round of candidates. He advised of 37
how this opening would be advertised. 38
39
Mayor Flaherty stated with the budgetary constraints, he would consider delaying the hiring for 40
this position until the City knows about Legislative actions and 2009 funding. He stated he is not 41
comfortable with a levy increase for this year and tough decisions will need to be made on what 42
should be cut. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2009
Regular Meeting Page 12
Clerk-Administrator Ericson stated they can remove the postings but money will not be saved by 1
not filling this position because then the City would have to hire Bonestroo to do more work. 2
3
Council Member Mueller noted the street and utility projects are number one priories and she 4
would not feel comfortable moving into those utility projects without having that City position 5
filled. 6
7
Mayor Flaherty stated Mounds View has not had a Public Works Director for about a year and 8
done well with the consulting engineer. He stated he thought the City was not paying that much 9
more for the consultant than would be paid to a City position. Finance Director Beer advised 10
there is no benefit to not hiring a Public Works Director. 11
12
Council consensus was reached to advertise the Public Works Director position. 13
14
4. Ballot Recount. 15
16
Council Member Stigney asked whether anyone has suggested counting the ballots that were set 17
aside. Council Member Mueller offered to review and tabulate those ballots. 18
19
Council consensus was reached to have Council Member Mueller count and tabulate the ballots 20
that were set aside. 21
22
C. Reports of City Attorney 23
24
None. 25
26
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, February 2, 2009, at 7 p.m. 27
Next Council Meeting: Monday, January 26, 2009, at 7 p.m. 28
29
13. ADJOURNMENT 30
31
The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. 32
33
Transcribed by: 34
35
Carla Wirth 36
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 37
Item No: 11B1
Meeting Date: February 9, 2009
Type of Business:
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
From:Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer
Item Title/Subject:Report on Design Issue - County Road 10
Trailway Project: Segments 1-5
Background:
On January 9, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution 6716 authorizing the
preparation of a preliminary feasibility report for the County Road 10 Trailway, Lighting,
and Landscape Project, including Segments 9 & 10, and Segments 1 – 5.
On November 13, 2007 the City Council reviewed the Feasibility Report for the County
Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 1-5 and held a Public Hearing on the project.
On June 9, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution 7279 approving the Feasibility
Report for the project, ordering the project with reduced scope, authorizing the preparation
of plans and specifications, and authorizing easement activities for the County Road 10
Trailway Project: Segments 1-5.
On November 24, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution 7362 Approving The Plans
And Specifications for the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 1-5.
On December 19, 2008 the permit application and supporting materials were delivered to
the Rice Creek Watershed District for the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 1-5.
Discussion:
Proposed Trail Segments 1-5 will be located along the northeast side of County Road 10,
extending from County Road H to Red Oak Drive. During the application review process
for the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) permit required by the project, an issue has
been brought to light. Staff would like to review this issue with Council and receive
direction on how to proceed.
The portion of the Trail in question is located immediately west of Woodale Drive. At this
location, there is a large existing storm water pond, separated from the existing ditch along
County Road 10 by an existing berm. Water from the pond drains to the ditch through an
existing culvert, is then collected by the existing storm sewer beneath Woodale Drive, and
ultimately discharges into Rice Creek. This location is shown in Figure 1, included with
this Staff Report.
February 9, 2009 Item No. 11B 1
Page 2
Bonestroo Staff had met with RCWD Staff prior to preparing the permit application for the
project, to determine the application requirements. Historically, for projects consisting of
trail or sidewalk improvements, RCWD had waived the rate control portions of their rules.
This was the case on the previous City project for County Road 10 Trail Segments 9 & 10,
as well as for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk project.
During the initial meeting, RCWD Staff indicated that they felt rate control would again not
be a requirement for the permit on Trail Segments 1-5. However, they did reserve final
judgment until they actually performed the detailed review of the permit application
submittal materials.
The permit application materials were submitted to RCWD on December 19, 2008. The
initial review report was received from the RCWD Engineer on January 9, 2008. The
report stated that the rate control portion of the rule would be applied to this project. Rate
control was being required due to potential impacts to the drainage system downstream of
the outlet for the storm sewer beneath Woodale Drive.
As a result of the RCWD review, the plan needed to be revised to provide rate control. In
addition, detailed storm water modeling and analysis was required by RCWD for both the
existing and proposed conditions to show the proposed rate control method would work.
Bonestroo Staff had not performed the detailed storm water analysis prior to this, in an
effort to save the City the cost of this analysis. The analysis was not necessary prior to
this permit requirement.
The solution to the rate control requirement is straightforward and relatively inexpensive.
The existing end section of the storm sewer beneath Woodale Drive can be removed and
replaced with a new structure with a smaller diameter opening. No easements are
required for the work, the work is readily accessible from County Road 10, and the work is
similar to other storm sewer work already included in the project. Construction cost for the
storm sewer revision is estimated at approximately $3,000.
The construction plans were revised to show the rate control modification to the storm
sewer, and the revised plans were submitted to RCWD. Upon review, RCWD found this to
be acceptable. The permit application for the project was considered at the RCWD Board
meeting of January 28, 2009, and conditional approval (CAPROC) was granted.
Issue Identified – Trail Overtopping
The detailed storm water modeling was performed for both the existing condition, as well
as the proposed condition with the storm sewer modification. When the results of the
analysis were reviewed, Bonestroo Staff discovered that during very large storm events,
the high water level of the existing storm water pond is predicted to exceed the proposed
trail elevation. In other words, during large storms, a portion of the trail would be lower
than the pond, and the trail would be overtopped with water for a period of time.
February 9, 2009 Item No. 11B 1
Page 3
It must be noted that the predicted overtopping of the trail would occur only during very
large storms, only for a limited length of the trail, and only for a relatively short duration.
The overtopping of the trail would occur during the “50-year” storm and the “100-year”
storm. There is a 2% chance that a “50-year” storm will occur during any given year.
Similarly, there is a 1% chance that a “100-year” storm will occur during any given year.
The trail is not predicted to be overtopped by storms of less than the “50-year” intensity.
The following table summarizes the predicted overtopping of the trail:
County Road 10 Trail: Segments 1-5
Summary of Predicted Overtopping
Maximum Water
Depth Across Trail
Length of
Trail Affected*
Duration Trail
Below Water
Likelihood of
Occurrence
3.5 inches < 250 feet 1 hour, 10 minutes 2% in any
given year
9 inches < 250 feet 2 hour, 30 minutes 1% in any
given year
* total length of Trail Segments 1-5 is 8,960 feet.
Note: The storm water model predicts that the pond would crest at its high water level
while the rain is still falling. The model further predicts that by the time the rainfall has
ended, the pond water level would have dropped to an elevation lower than the trail.
The information above shows the model prediction that there is a very low probability that
the trail will be overtopped with water during any given year. And even in the instance
where it were, the portion of trail affected would be relatively small (less than 3% of the
total trail length), and the condition would abate itself by the time the rainfall ended.
Options
The plans for Trail Segments 1-5 have been completed, and have been reviewed by both
Ramsey County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. All necessary approvals
from RCWD and the Corps of Engineers have been obtained. However, the project has not
yet been advertised for bids, so there is the opportunity to modify the plans if desired.
Staff has identified two options for addressing this situation:
x Option 1 – Deem the Situation Acceptable
If the predicted overtopping of the trail is considered to be low enough in impact and
frequency of occurrence, then Council could deem the situation acceptable, and simply
proceed with the project as currently proposed. There would be no impact to project
costs or schedule.
February 9, 2009 Item No. 11B 1
Page 4
x Option 2 – Raise the Trail to Prevent Overtopping
If the predicted overtopping of the trail is considered to be unacceptable, then the design
elevation of the trail could be raised such that the trail would be above the predicted high
water level of the pond.
To raise the trail, fill would need to be added to the berm. The top of the berm would
need to be maintained wide enough to support the proposed trail. Therefore, the added
fill would result in extending the slope limits on either side of the berm, increasing the
construction area of the project.
Wetlands are present in this area, having been delineated on both the ditch and pond
sides of the berm. The trail as currently proposed does have a small impact on the
wetlands – approximately 610 SF total. Figure 2 included with this Staff Report shows
the locations of the existing delineated wetlands, and the wetland impacts caused by the
trail as currently designed.
The proposed wetland impacts have been reviewed and accepted by both the Corps of
Engineers and RCWD through the permit processes. To mitigate for the wetland
impacts, the City would be purchasing credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank.
With the increased slope limits caused by adding fill to the berm to raise the trail, the
amount of the wetland impacts would be increased. This would require that additional
credits be purchased by the City from the Wetland Bank. More significantly, it would
require that the documentation regarding the wetland impacts be revised and
resubmitted to the Corps of Engineer and RCWD for consideration of amending the
previous approval.
If the trail is raised, added project construction costs would be incurred to add the fill
material, and additional engineering expense would be incurred to revise the plans and
to prepare and submit the revised permit materials regarding the wetland impact.
In addition to the expense, there would be a time delay to the project caused by the
review of the permit amendments. Such delay is estimated to be approximately one
month. The current project schedule had construction of the project beginning
approximately June 1, 2009, and being completed in early September. If the project
were delayed for additional permit review, the schedule would be pushed back to start in
early July and be completed by early to mid October. This would still be feasible.
A summary of these Options is shown in the table on the following page.
February 9, 2009 Item No. 11B 1
Page 5
Summary of Options
To Address Trail Overtopping
Option Cost Delay
1 – Deem Acceptable None.None.
2 – Raise Trail $20 - $25,000 1 month
It must be noted that Option 2 to raise the trail is not guaranteed approval by the agencies.
The agencies would consider the proposed additional wetland impacts, may conclude that
they are not justifiable, and therefore deny the application. In that case, the City would
have incurred the additional engineering expense for the permit submittals and also the
delay in project schedule, yet still end up with the current plan. The City should be aware
of this possibility before choosing whether or not to pursue Option 2.
Recommendation:
Bonestroo Staff has reviewed this issue. The issue has also been discussed with City
Staff. Staff consensus is that this issue could be deemed acceptable, and the project
continue as currently proposed.
However, Staff felt the issue warranted discussion with Council. Staff is seeking direction
from Council as to whether they wish to proceed with the project as currently proposed, or
revise the project to raise the trail.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer
Attachments:
- Figure 1: Location Plan
- Figure 2: Wetland Impacts
¯
0 6030
Feet
")")#*#*")#*#*")!(!(!(!(¨
¨
¨General Flow Direction
Existing Storm Pipe
Proposed Trail
Raised Trail Section
Raise approximately 250 feet
of trail 6 - 10 inches
Proposed Rate
Restriction Location
Existing Pond
Existing Ditch
February 2009
Figure 1
City of Mounds View
Trail Segments 1-5 Project
Raising Trail Above
100-year High Water Level
Proposed Trail
Pond Outlet Culvert
Existing
Storm Sewer
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
1
0 Woodale Drive
COUNTY ROAD 10W
O
O
D
A
L
E
D
R
I
V
E WETLAND IMPACTDELINEATED WETLANDENWS