The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packets - 2008/09/22 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL Monday, September 22, 2008 7:00 p.m. (REVISED AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 AT 10:30 A.M.) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Flaherty, Hull, Mueller 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 A. Award to Steven Petty – Mayor’s Choice Award – Car Show B. Constitution Week Sept 17 – 23 Reminder 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05pm Public Hearing to Consider a Major Subdivision and PUD Amendment to Add “Retail” as an Allowed Use at the Mermaid, 2200 County Highway 10. B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 814, Amending Zoning Code Chapter 1120.03, Subd. 1, adding a Section for Senior Housing Developments. (ROLL CALL VOTE) C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 808, an Ordinance Adding a New Chapter 611 to the City Code Relating to Outdoor Special Events. (ROLL CALL VOTE) D. Resolution 7334, a Resolution Requesting a Time Extension for Completing the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. E. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 815, an Ordinance Amending Sect. 702.01, Subd 13 Relating To Crimes Against Public Safety And Health. F. Resolution 7336 Approving Traffic Calming Elements on Red Oak Drive for the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project. G. Resolution 7338 Approving the Policy to Address Non-Conforming Driveways within the Street and Utility Improvement Program. H. Resolution 7339 Authorizing the Preliminary Survey Activities for Area C of the Street and Utility Improvement Program. I. Resolution 7337 Approving a Labor Agreement with the Mounds View Public Works Bargaining Unit for 2008 – 2009. 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Licenses for Approval B. Resolution 7324, Authorizing a One Day Charitable Gambling Permit (Raffle) for the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club on April 3, 2009, located at The Mermaid. C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:10pm to Consider Reassessment of the H2 and 2003 Street Project Areas. D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:15pm to Consider Assessments for Delinquent Utility Bills. E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:20pm to Consider Assessments for Diseased Trees. F. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:25pm to Consider Assessments for Abated Properties. G. Resolution 7333 Approving Lease Agreement Amendment #3 with Verizon Wireless for the Installation of a Generator at the Water Tower Site. H. Resolution 7335, Authorizing a Request for a MnDOT Cooperative Agreement Project at the Intersection of County Highway 10 and County Road H. I. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:05 p.m., to Consider the 2009 Mounds View Fee Schedule. J. Resolution 7341, a Resolution Authorizing the Mounds View Police Department to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, for the Safe and Sober Project from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 11, 2008, City Council Minutes. B. September 8, 2008, Executive Session Minutes. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff 1. Reminder: Mounds View City Council/Staff Mini-Retreat Located at Random Park Building on Monday, September 29, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 6, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL Monday, September 22, 2008 7:00 p.m. (REVISED AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 AT 10:30 A.M.) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Flaherty, Hull, Mueller 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 A. Award to Steven Petty – Mayor’s Choice Award – Car Show B. Constitution Week Sept 17 – 23 Reminder 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05pm Public Hearing to Consider a Major Subdivision and PUD Amendment to Add “Retail” as an Allowed Use at the Mermaid, 2200 County Highway 10. B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 814, Amending Zoning Code Chapter 1120.03, Subd. 1, adding a Section for Senior Housing Developments. (ROLL CALL VOTE) C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 808, an Ordinance Adding a New Chapter 611 to the City Code Relating to Outdoor Special Events. (ROLL CALL VOTE) D. Resolution 7334, a Resolution Requesting a Time Extension for Completing the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. E. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 815, an Ordinance Amending Sect. 702.01, Subd 13 Relating To Crimes Against Public Safety And Health. F. Resolution 7336 Approving Traffic Calming Elements on Red Oak Drive for the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project. G. Resolution 7338 Approving the Policy to Address Non-Conforming Driveways within the Street and Utility Improvement Program. H. Resolution 7339 Authorizing the Preliminary Survey Activities for Area C of the Street and Utility Improvement Program. I. Resolution 7337 Approving a Labor Agreement with the Mounds View Public Works Bargaining Unit for 2008 – 2009. Mounds View City Council Agenda September 22, 2008 Page 2 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Licenses for Approval B. Resolution 7324, Authorizing a One Day Charitable Gambling Permit (Raffle) for the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club on April 3, 2009, located at The Mermaid. C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:10pm to Consider Reassessment of the H2 and 2003 Street Project Areas. D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:15pm to Consider Assessments for Delinquent Utility Bills. E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:20pm to Consider Assessments for Diseased Trees. F. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:25pm to Consider Assessments for Abated Properties. G. Resolution 7333 Approving Lease Agreement Amendment #3 with Verizon Wireless for the Installation of a Generator at the Water Tower Site. H. Resolution 7335, Authorizing a Request for a MnDOT Cooperative Agreement Project at the Intersection of County Highway 10 and County Road H. I. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:05 p.m., to Consider the 2009 Mounds View Fee Schedule. J. Resolution 7341, a Resolution Authorizing the Mounds View Police Department to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, for the Safe and Sober Project from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 11, 2008, City Council Minutes. B. September 8, 2008, Executive Session Minutes. 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff 1. Reminder: Mounds View City Council/Staff Mini-Retreat Located at Random Park Building on Monday, September 29, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 6, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Item No: 7A Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 Type of Business: Public Hearing Administrator Review: __________ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Major Subdivision and Amendment to the “Mermaid” Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Allow for Retail Uses Planning Cases MA2008-001 and PA2008-001 Introduction: Charlie and Dan Hall, owners and representatives of The Mermaid, have applied for a major subdivision to create a new 1.4 acre parcel from their existing 9.36 acre site. They also have requested an amendment to the Mermaid property Planned Unit Development (PUD). This PUD is on the northwest corner of County Highway 10 and County Road H and currently only allows for bowling lanes, hotel, banquet center, night club and lounge, and restaurant uses. The Halls are requesting an amendment to their PUD to add retail as an allowed use. Their intention is to sell the proposed 1.4 acre lot to a developer who plans to build a small retail center. Major Subdivision Discussion: 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 staff is proposing to keep this designation 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 that would treat the stormwater runoff for the Mermaid, along with several other nearby properties and the completed County Road H reconstruction. It can be assumed that little additional stormwater treatment would be required by Rice Creek Watershed District for this subdivision or when a new building is constructed since no additional impervious surface would be added. When a development review for the new retail center is applied for, the applicant will need to have their plans approved by Rice Creek Watershed District. 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 two new property lines running through the parking lot are necessary. Mermaid Staff Report September 22, 2008 Page 2 Streets: No new or altered streets or access drives into the Mermaid site are being proposed. Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is subject to a park dedication fee. For a major subdivision, 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. When this property was replatted in 2000, a park dedication fee of $92, 306 was paid at that time based on the land value of the entire property. Chapter 1204.02 Subd. 5 addresses park dedication fees for a re-subdivision: 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. Based on the Ramsey County land value for the Mermaid site, the 2008 value per square foot is $4.45 ($1,814,400 land value divided by 407,642 square feet). In 2000, the value per square foot was $2.26 ($923,057 divided by 407,642 square feet). Since a fee has already been paid on the entire Mermaid parcel, city staff proposes the fee be based only on the new 1.4 acre parcel and be figured using the difference between the 2000 and 2008 land values. The difference between the land values is $2.19. The proposed park dedication fee would equal 60,984 square feet x $2.19 = $133,555 x 10% = $13,355. The City Council should determine the park dedication fee. Utilities: When a new building is constructed, all utilities on the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. Traffic: The traffic from the new retail center would either exit by a right turn only onto County Highway 10 or onto County Road H, which is designated as a collector street. Both of these roads have adequate capacity for the additional traffic that five small stores would generate. Vegetation: Most of the new lot area is currently an asphalt parking lot with a few landscaped medians that will be removed or moved with the new development. When a new building is proposed, the City Forester will review the new landscaping plan at that time. Wetlands: There are no wetlands on this site. Major Subdivision Summary: The Mermaid is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. The submitted plat appears to meet city code requirements and is currently undergoing a review by the city attorney. PUD Amendment Discussion: The City originally approved the Mermaid PUD in 2000 when the hotel addition was proposed, and specified that bowling lanes, a hotel, banquet center, night club and lounge, and restaurant were the only allowed uses on the site. The Halls are now proposing to Mermaid Staff Report September 22, 2008 Page 3 subdivide and sell a piece of their property to a developer who plans to build a 14,000 square foot, five store retail mall. This proposed addition of retail to the site requires the City to amend the Mermaid’s PUD Agreement to allow this new use. The addition of a retail center to one of the most prominent corners in the city would initially seem to be a good fit. The primary issue with this proposal is parking – both for the existing Mermaid and the new retail building. By adding a building to the site, many of the existing parking spaces will be lost and the new stores will generate additional parking needs. Staff required that a parking study be included with the application for this PUD Amendment. The Mermaid has made some interior changes since the PUD and parking requirements were originally approved in 2000. In the last few years, the downstairs night club has been removed with additional banquet space put in its place, and the size of the restaurant was reduced and an arcade area added. The city code does not address complementary uses when determining parking requirements. The code only states “this specific use requires this number of parking spaces,” whereas staff realizes that in this situation for example, people staying at the hotel also may be using the banquet room and the arcade. The parking study is included in this staff report. There also are other issues to keep in mind when determining whether the parking would be adequate for the new retail use. The Mermaid sets up a 4,200 square foot temporary tent for 180 days each spring through fall as additional banquet space. When the City approved the Interim Use Permit for the tent in March 2005, it was determined that the existing parking available on the site was adequate. This IUP was only approved for five years, which means that they will need to reapply for another IUP in March 2010. The consultant who did the parking study included the temporary tent (called the “courtyard”) into the parking requirements, whereas the City approved the IUP without requiring any additional parking. Another issue is that the Mermaid is currently leasing a number of their parking spaces near County Highway 10 to Metro Transit for a Park & Ride. The parking study does not address this as an existing use, so one could assume that the Mermaid will be discontinuing the leasing agreement if the city approves the subdivision and PUD Amendment. In 2000, when the PUD was approved 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. The proposed 1.4 acre lot would remove 193 stalls from the Mermaid’s property, but the new retail construction would add 87 stalls back. This would equal a total of 654 parking stalls on both the Mermaid and new retail center property. The developer is proposing to share parking with the Mermaid, and is using 87 of the Mermaid’s remaining 567 stalls as shared parking in order to meet the retail center’s 174 parking stall requirement. The parking demands for this entire site, including the new development, will vary throughout each day. All of the uses on the site will not have their peak parking demands at the same time or even on the same day of the week. The Mermaid is currently 48 parking stalls short of what was required in 2000, and also has been able to lease unused daytime spaces for Park & Ride parking, and yet the owners state that the parking lot has still never been filled to anywhere near capacity. Mermaid Staff Report September 22, 2008 Page 4 Amendment Process: An amendment to a Planned Unit Development is processed as an amendment to an approved Conditional Use Permit. That means that the City follows the procedural requirements of Section 1125 of the Zoning Code. Section 1125 requires that the Planning Commission and City Council review the request, taking into consideration any and all potential adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan. Mounds View’s adopted Comprehensive Plan identifies the Mermaid property PUD site as a Regional Commercial PUD. The proposed accessory building as an addition to the existing office building would be consistent with the Comp Plan. The geographical area involved. The new parcel would be right at the corner of County Highway 10 and County Road H, with the Mermaid adjacent to the north and west. Neighborhood Impact. The neighborhood should not be impacted by adding a new retail building. There is a traffic signal at this intersection and this area is not near any residential. The character of the surrounding area. The proposed retail center would be in keeping with the character of this area as County Highway 10 is the main commercial corridor in the city, and there is another retail center to the north, along with a gas station and four restaurants directly across County Highway 10. The demonstrated need for such use. The Hall’s have a purchase agreement with a developer to purchase the proposed 1.4 acre parcel to redevelop into a retail mall. The developer has indicated to city staff that there are already tenants interested in leasing this space. PUD Amendment Summary: A PUD offers the flexibility necessary to make a good project feasible when it would otherwise be difficult to meet city code requirements. Staff agrees that the parking requirements as indicated in the city code are excessive for this site, especially with the amount of complementary uses, and the relatively small amounts of individual retail space. It appears that amending the PUD to allow retail uses should have no adverse impacts and would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the amendment to add retail as an allowed use in the Mermaid PUD. Deadline for Action: This application was accepted on August 25, 2008 and in accordance with MN Statute 15.99, a decision shall be made within 60 days of application acceptance. The deadline for action for this request is October 24, 2008 unless the City exercises its option to extend the timeline for another 60 days. Planning Commission Action: On September 3, 2008, the Planning Commission unanimously (6-0 vote, Walsh-Kaczmarek absent) recommended approval of the preliminary plat and PUD Amendment. Mermaid Staff Report September 22, 2008 Page 5 Alternatives: The City Council may take one of the following actions related to the Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment requests: 1. Approve the Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment 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 recommendation. 3. Table action on the request. This option would be appropriate if the City Council should need additional information or more input before a decision can be made. Recommendation: Approve the Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment as requested. Resolution 7340 is attached for your consideration if this option is chosen. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Views 3. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 4. Planning Commission Resolution 894-08 5. City Council Resolution 7340 6. Parking Study Zoning Map Mermaid *Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View N Highway 10 County Road H Mermaid Hotel Aerial View N Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 894-08 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE MERMAID PUD AGREEMENT TO ALLOW “RETAIL” AT 2200 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASES MA2008-001 AND PA2006-001 WHEREAS, Charlie and Dan Hall, representing the Mermaid, have requested approval of a preliminary plat for a major subdivision, and an Amendment to the Mermaid PUD Agreement to allow “Retail” 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 2 existing lots and creates a new 1.4 acre lot; 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 complies with county platting requirements; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee which the amount will 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 Mermaid PUD currently does not allow retail uses; and, Resolution 894-08 Page 2 WHEREAS, the property located at 2200 County Highway 10, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Mermaid Addition and Outlot A, Mermaid Addition; was approved by the City Council for bowling lanes, hotel, banquet center, night club and lounge and restaurant uses; and, WHEREAS, the property owners wish to amend the PUD Agreement by adding “retail” as an allowed use for the site in order to redevelop the proposed 1.4 acre lot into a retail center; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has examined the potential adverse effects that could result from such an amendment. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding these requests 1. Staff Report 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Site Plan NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat submitted by Charlie and Dan Hall 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 pay a park dedication fee in an amount to be determined by the City Council. 4. 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 null and void. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of fact related to this PUD Amendment request: 1. The property in question, 2200 County Highway 10, described by the PUD Agreement as the “Mermaid” is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). 2. The Mermaid appears to have excess parking, and as such the owners have requested an amendment to the PUD to allow for retail to be allowed on the site in order to redevelop 1.4 acres of the property into a retail center. Resolution 894-08 Page 3 3. The Mounds View Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area as a Regional Commercial Planned Unit Development. 4. The property at 2200 County Highway 10 is within the City’s primary commercial corridor and as such, redevelopment and new businesses are desirable. 5. The property is at the corner of County Highway 10 and County Road H, one of the main commercial corners in the city. The construction of a new retail center would have no depreciatory affects upon the surrounding area. 6. Any new development must apply for a development review. 7. There do not appear to be any adverse effects associated with this proposed amendment. 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 3rd day of September, 2008. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kenneth Roberts Community Development Director (SEAL) RESOLUTION 7340 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE MERMAID PUD AGREEMENT TO ALLOW “RETAIL” AT 2200 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASES MA2008-001 AND PA2006-001 WHEREAS, Charlie and Dan Hall, representing the Mermaid, have requested approval of a preliminary plat for a major subdivision, and an amendment to the Mermaid PUD Agreement to allow “Retail” 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 2 existing lots and creates a new 1.4 acre lot; 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 is subject to a $27,138 park dedication fee; 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 Mermaid PUD currently does not allow retail uses; and, Resolution 7340 Page 2 WHEREAS, the property located at 2200 County Highway 10, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Mermaid Addition and Outlot A, Mermaid Addition; was approved by the City Council for bowling lanes, hotel, banquet center, night club and lounge and restaurant uses; and, WHEREAS, the property owners wish to amend the PUD Agreement by adding “retail” as an allowed use for the site in order to redevelop the proposed 1.4 acre lot into a retail center; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this request on September 3, 2008 and examined the potential adverse effects that could result from such an amendment, and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding these requests: 1. Staff Report 4. Aerial View 2. Preliminary Plat 5. Site Plan 3. Zoning Map 6. Parking Study 4. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the Preliminary Plat as submitted by Charlie and Dan Hall 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 all requirements made by the City Attorney as stated in a plat opinion. 3. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in an amount to be determined by the City Council. 4. 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 null and void. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes the following finding of fact and approves this PUD Amendment request: 1. The property in question, 2200 County Highway 10, described by the PUD Agreement as the “Mermaid” is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). 2. The Mermaid appears to have excess parking, and as such the owners have requested an amendment to the PUD to allow for retail to be allowed on the site in order to redevelop 1.4 acres of the property into a retail center. Resolution 7340 Page 3 3. The Mounds View Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area as a Regional Commercial Planned Unit Development. 4. The property at 2200 County Highway 10 is within the City’s primary commercial corridor and as such, redevelopment and new businesses are desirable. 5. The property is at the corner of County Highway 10 and County Road H, one of the main commercial corners in the city. The construction of a new retail center would have no depreciatory affects upon the surrounding area, and would be consistent with the character of the area. 6. Any new development on the site must apply to the City for a development review. 7. There do not appear to be any adverse effects associated with this proposed amendment. Adopted this 22nd day of September, 2008. _____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 7B Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 Type of Business: Action Administrator Review: ________ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: 2nd Reading and Adoption of an Amendment to Zoning Code Chapter 1120.03 Subd. 1, Relating to PUD and Senior Housing Introduction: At the July 7, 2008 Council Worksession, staff discussed a proposal to amend the zoning code about Planned Unit Developments and senior housing. The City Council agreed with staff’s proposal and authorized staff to work with the Planning Commission to prepare changes to the code for senior housing. Discussion: At the September 8, 2008 Council meeting, there was a question about reducing the property size required for a planned unit development (PUD) from three acres to two acres. Whether the minimum project area is two or three acres, a developer could still propose a senior housing development on a less than a two acre parcel, they simply would not be eligible to take advantage of the specific senior housing standards that are proposed for Chapter 1120.03. The Council also discussed the parking requirements that are being proposed. The language in this ordinance recommends the specific number of stalls, but also states that the City Council may determine if there is a need for more or less parking for a proposal. Staff has since the last Council meeting, made some additional revisions to the ordinance. The three story height restriction was removed based on that the purpose of a PUD to allow flexibility to the code. The developer could apply for a project that is more than three stories tall, but if the City Council does not agree that the proposal height is appropriate for the particular site, the Council would not have to approve the project. The other change is to number 5 which refers to the specific tenants allowed to live in the building. Staff determined that listing the people allowed is not necessary as the building owner will likely have their own rules as to who is allowed and is who will be managing this. The language saying that at least one of the tenants must be 55 years of age or older was kept in as that ensures the building will be mostly “seniors”, based on our age requirement. PUD/Senior Housing Code Amendment Page 2 September 22, 2008 The City Council approved the introduction and first reading of this ordinance on September 8, 2008. Recommendation: Approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 814, an Ordinance amending Chapter 1120.03 Subd. 1, relating to Planned Unit Developments and Senior Housing. Staff also recommends the Council consent to the publication of a summary of the ordinance as authorized by City Charter section 3.07 Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate ORDINANCE NO. 814 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1120.03 SUBD. 1 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADD A SECTION FOR SENIOR HOUSING THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Planning Commission, has hereby determined that Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Zoning Code be amended by adding a section for senior housing as follows: g. Senior Housing: (1) The building must have at least 60 percent of its units designated for assisted living or memory or Alzheimer’s care for the city to consider the project or building as a planned unit development. (2) The tract of land for which a planned unit development, senior housing project is proposed and permit requested shall contain not less than two (2) acres of land. (3) The front, side and rear yard building setbacks of the planned unit development site, at a minimum, shall be: (a) Front = 30 feet (b) Side = 20 feet (c) Rear = 30 feet, or 50 feet if abutting residential (4) The parking recommendations are as follows, unless the City Council determines more or less parking stalls would serve a better purpose: Parking spaces recommended are: (a) Independent living = 1 space per unit with half of the spaces enclosed (b) Assisted living = 0.5 spaces per unit (c) Nursing homes and memory care = 1 space for every 4 beds (d) Facility staff = 1 space for every employee on the largest shift Ordinance 814 Page 2 (5) The permanent residents residing in independent living units shall be limited to persons who are 55 years of age or over except that one other family member or designated caregiver may reside with the permanent senior resident in accordance with any pertinent lease provision. (6) The City may require the developer or builder of senior housing to install screening and buffering, such as landscaping, berming or fencing (or a combination of these methods), to help protect neighboring properties. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. PUBLIC HEARING, INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 8th day of September, 2008. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 22nd day of September, 2008. PUBLICATION DATE: October 1, 2008 _____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Jim Ericson, Clerk-Administrator (seal) ORDINANCE SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 814 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1120.03 SUBD. 1 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ADD A SECTION FOR SENIOR HOUSING On September 22, 2008, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which adds language to the City’s zoning code to add senior housing developments into the chapter regarding Planned Unit Developments. The ordinance is on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Clerk Administrator. The ordinance is posted in its entirety on the City’s website, located at www.ci.mounds- view.mn.us James Ericson Clerk-Administrator Item No. 07C Type of Business: CB Date: September 22, 2008 City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Jim Ericson, Clerk-Administrator Desaree Crane, Assistant City Clerk-Administrator Item Title/Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 808, an Ordinance Adding a New Chapter 611 to the City Code Relating to Outdoor Special Events (Roll Call Vote) Background: The City Council asked Staff to research policy considerations for outdoor special events. Many businesses have requested to hold outdoor special events, most recently Moe’s. Staff was directed to research what other cities did in regard to such outdoor special events. Many cities responded with their policies, which provided many regulatory possibilities. Staff was also directed to come up with draft policy language that would include a parking plan, security plan, clean up plan, and statements pertaining to toilet facilities, entertainment or stage locations, and proof of workers compensation insurance. The special event policy was discussed on June 4, 2007; October 1, 2007;February 4, 2008; March 3, 2008; April 28, 2008; May 5, 2008; June 9, 2008, July 7, 2008, and again on September 2, 2008. Many policy iterations were presented and discussed with a resolution brought forward on April 28. It was later determined that the proposed special event regulations should be presented in ordinance format. The Council reviewed the final draft of the policy on June 9, 2008 and approved the first reading and introduction of the proposed ordinance. The second reading was scheduled for June 23, 2008, however the Council opted to refrain from adopting the ordinance until more discussion could be had on the issue of private events versus public events and the number of event attendees above which would necessitate obtaining a special event permit. This issue, and many other issues, were discussed at the July Work Session. Discussion: Many questions were raised at the July Work Session to include, definition of a special event, differentiating between public and private events, whether a special event permit should have an alcohol component, whether a public event at one of our on-sale liquor businesses should obtain an outdoor liquor endorsement in addition with the special event permit. The City Council reviewed Ordinance 808 again at the September 3rd Work Session and minor revisions were made to the ordinance to include removing the alcohol component requirement. Attached for your reference is the Ordinance 808 (revised), an Ordinance amending Title 600 by adding a new Chapter 611 to the city code relating to Outdoor Special Events for you reference. Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the second reading and adopt Ordinance 808. An Ordinance Summary will be published in the next edition of the Mounds View/New Brighton Bulletin, which is consistent with the Mounds View City Charter. This Ordinance will go into effect 30 days after publication. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson, Clerk-Administrator Desaree Crane, Asst. City Clerk-Administrator ORDINANCE NO. 808 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 600 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 611 RELATING TO OUTDOOR SPECIAL EVENTS SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 600, with a new Chapter 611 to the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material as follows: CHAPTER 611 OUTDOOR SPECIAL EVENTS SECTION: 611.01: Findings of Fact; Purpose 611.02: Definitions 611.03: Permit Required 611.04: Permit Not Required 611.05: Permit Application 611.06: Permit Review 611.07: Permit Issuance 611.08: Indemnification Agreement 611.09: Insurance Requirements 611.10: Cleanup Deposit 611.11: Revocation of Permit 611.12: Violations 611.01: FINDINGS OF FACT; PURPOSE: This Chapter governs the time, place and manner of holding certain special events on public and private property when an event’s impact upon the health, fire, law enforcement, transportation or other services exceeds those regularly provided to that property. This Chapter is enacted in order to promote the health, safety and welfare of all residents and visitors of the City by ensuring that special events do not create disturbances, become nuisances, menace or threaten life, health and property, disrupt traffic or threaten or damage private or public property. It is not the intent of the City Council by enacting this Chapter to regulate in any manner the content of speech or infringe upon the right to assemble, except for regulating the time, place and manner of speech and assembly and this Chapter should not be interpreted or construed otherwise. 611.02: DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Subd. 1. PRIVATE EVENT. Any event in which the general public is not invited or admitted. Subd. 2. SPECIAL EVENT: Any concert, fair, show, festival, carnival, rally, party, tournament, street dance or other attended outdoor entertainment or celebration that is to be held on public or private property. 611.03: PERMIT REQUIRED: Any person or organization desiring to conduct or sponsor a Special Event in the City shall first obtain a Special Event permit from the City. 611.04: OUTDOOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NOT REQUIRED: Subd. 1. A Special Event permit is not required for the following types of events: a. Private Events; b. The Mounds View Festival in the Park event; and c. The use of traditional public forums as alternative channels of communication by the public, provided that such use is for the free exercise of constitutionally protected activities and does not disrupt or interfere with traffic on public streets or the use of public places by other members of the public. 611.05: OUTDOOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION: Subd. 1. Any person or organization desiring to sponsor a Special Event that is not exempted by this Chapter must apply to the City for a Special Event permit. The Special Event permit application must be filed not less than 30 days in advance of the date in which the event is to occur. Subd. 2. Application Information: Special Event permit applications must include the following information: a. Type and description of the Special Event and a list of all activities to take place at the event; b. Name of the sponsoring entity, the names of at least two contact persons and their addresses and phone numbers, along with phone numbers where they can be reached on the date(s) of the event; c. Proposed date(s) of the Special Event, together with the beginning and ending times for each date; d. Proposed location of the Special Event, including a diagram of the proposed area to be used showing the location of any barricades, perimeter/security fencing, entertainment, stages, portable toilets, parking areas, trash containers and any other items related to the event; e. Estimated numbers of Special Event staff, participants and spectators; f. Any public health plans, including supplying water to the site, solid waste collection and the number of toilet facilities that will be available; g. Any plans for first aid facilities and the name of the person or entity providing these services; h. Any fire prevention and emergency medical service plans; i. Security plans; j. Parking plans; k. Cleanup plans; l. The admission fee, donation or other consideration to be charged or requested for admission to the Special Event, if applicable; m. Whether any sound amplification or public address system will be used or if there will be any playing of any music or musical instruments; n. Copy of a letter to be sent by the applicant to residents within 500 feet of the Special Event informing them of the event; o. Signature of the applicant; and p. Any other information requested by the City, that it deems reasonably necessary in order to determine the nature of the Special Event. Subd. 3. Permit Fee: An applicant for a Special Event permit must pay a nonrefundable permit fee in the amount established from time to time by the City’s fee schedule. 611.06: PERMIT REVIEW: Subd. 1. The City Council shall review the Special Event permit application and make a determination on whether to issue the permit or deny it. Subd. 2. Inspection: Prior to City Council review, the site of the Special Event shall be inspected by the City Fire Marshal. Subd. 3. Permit Denial: The City Council may deny an application for a Special Event permit if it determines from a consideration of the application or other pertinent information, that: a. The information contained in the application or supplemental information requested from the applicant is false or nonexistent in any material detail; b. The applicant fails to supplement the application after having been notified by the City of additional information or documents needed; c. The applicant fails to agree to abide or comply with all of the conditions and terms of the Special Event permit; d. The time, route, hours, location or size of the Special Event will unnecessarily disrupt the movement of other traffic within the area of the Special Event; e. The Special Event is of the size or nature that requires the diversion of too many law enforcement officers to properly police the event, site and contiguous areas that allowing the Special Event would unreasonably deny law enforcement protection to the remainder of the City and its residents; f. Another Special Event permit application has already been approved to hold another Special Event at the same time and place requested by the applicant or so close in time and place as to cause undue traffic congestion, or the City is unable to meet the needs to provide for law enforcement and other City services for both Special Events; g. The location of the Special Event would cause undue hardship for adjacent businesses or residents; h. The location of the Special Event will substantially interfere with any construction or maintenance work scheduled to take place upon or along public property or right-of-way; i. The Special Event would endanger public safety or health; j. The Special Event would seriously inconvenience the general public’s use of public property, services or facilities; k. The applicant fails to comply with the liability insurance requirements or the applicant’s insurance lapses or is canceled; l. The Special Event would create or constitute a public nuisance; m. The Special Event would be likely to cause significant damage to public property or facilities; or n. The Special Event would engage in or encourage participants to engage in illegal acts. Subd. 4. Permit Conditions: The City Council may condition the issuance of a Special Event permit by imposing reasonable conditions concerning the time, place and manner of the Special Event, and such conditions are necessary to protect the safety of persons and property, and the control of traffic; provided that such conditions shall not unreasonably restrict the right of free speech. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to: a. Alteration of the date(s), time(s), route or location of the Special Event proposed; b. Elimination of an activity at the Special Event which cannot be mitigated to a point as to ensure public safety and welfare, or which causes undue liability to the City; c. Requirements concerning the accommodation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; d. Requirements for the use of traffic cones or barricades; e. Requirements for the use of City personnel and equipment; f. Requirements for the provision of first aid or sanitary facilities; g. Requirements for the use of event monitors and the providing notice of the Special Event permit conditions to the events’ participants; h. Requirements on the number and type of vehicles, animals or structures to be allowed at the Special Event and the inspection and approval of structures by the City for safety purposes; i. Compliance with animal protection ordinances and laws; j. Requirements for the use of garbage containers and the cleanup and restoration of the property; k. Restrictions on the use of amplified sound and compliance with noise ordinances, regulations and laws; and l. Restrictions on the sale or consumption of food and alcohol. 611.07: PERMIT ISSUANCE: The City Clerk-Administrator shall issue the Special Event permit once the application has been approved by the City Council and the applicant has agreed to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit as well as the requirements of this Chapter. 611.08: INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT: If the Special Event, or any portion of the event is to be held on City property or right-of-way, prior to the issuance of a Special Event permit, the permit applicant and authorizing officer of the sponsoring organization, if any, must sign an agreement to indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officials, employees and agents harmless from any claim that arises in whole or in part out of the Special Event, except any claims arising solely out of the negligent acts or omissions of the City, its officials, employees and agents. 611.09: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. Liability Insurance Required: The applicant or sponsor of a Special Event must possess or obtain liability insurance to protect against loss from liability imposed by law for damages on account of bodily injury or property damage arising from the Special Event. A certificate of insurance must be filed with the City prior to issuance of the Special Event permit. The certificate of insurance must name the City, its officials, employees and agents as additional insureds. Insurance coverage must be maintained for the duration of the Special Event. Subd. 2. Minimum Limits: Insurance coverage must be a commercial general liability policy. The minimum limits must be at least $1,000,000. The policy must also include an endorsement for liquor liability. The City Council may require additional endorsements depending upon the type of Special Event and proposed activities. Subd. 3. W aiver or Reduction of Required Limits: The City may waive or reduce the insurance requirements of this Chapter under the following circumstances: a. The applicant or officer of the sponsoring organization signs a verified statement that it believes that the Special Event’s purpose is First Amendment expression and that the cost of obtaining the insurance is so financially burdensome that it would constitute an unreasonable burden on the right of First Amendment expression; b. The applicant or an officer of the sponsoring organization signs a verified statement that the insurance coverage required by this Chapter is impossible to obtain; or c. The City Council determines that the insurance requirements are in excess of the reasonable risk presented by the proposed Special Event. 611.10: CLEANUP DEPOSIT: The applicant or sponsor of the Special Event involving the sale of food or beverages for immediate consumption, erection of structures, horses or other large animals or another activity likely to create a substantial need for cleanup may be required by the City to provide a cleanup deposit prior to issuance of the Special Event permit. The cleanup deposit shall be in an amount set by the City Council. The cleanup deposit will be returned to the applicant/sponsor if the area used for the Special Event has been cleaned and restored to the same condition as it existed prior to the event. If the property used for the event has not been properly cleaned or restored within 24 hours of the event completion, the applicant/sponsor will be billed for the actual cost by the City for the cleanup and restoration. The cleanup deposit will be applied toward payment of the bill. 611.11: PERMIT REVOCATION: Any Special Event permit issued pursuant to this Chapter may be summarily revoked by a City law enforcement officer at any time when, by reason of disaster, public calamity, riot or other emergency, the law enforcement officer determines that the safety of the public or property requires such revocation. The City Clerk-Administrator may also summarily revoke any Special Event permit issued pursuant to this Chapter if he or she finds that the permit has been issued based upon false information or when the permittee exceeds the scope of the permit. Notice of such action revoking a permit shall be delivered in writing to the permittee by personal service or certified mail at the address specified by the permittee in its application. 611.12: VIOLATIONS: Subd. 1. Unlawful to Sponsor a Special Event without a Permit: It is unlawful for any person to sponsor or conduct a Special Event requiring a permit pursuant to this Chapter unless a valid Special Event permit has been issued for the event. Subd. 2. Unlawful to Exceed the Scope of the Permit: The Special Event permit authorizes the Special Event permittee or sponsor to conduct only such a Special Event as is described in the permit, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. It is unlawful for the permittee or sponsor to willfully violate the terms and conditions of the permit. Subd. 3. Misdemeanor. Any person convicted of violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine or imprisonment as specified by state statute. Each day in which a violation continues to occur shall constitute a separate offense. Violation of any provision of this section shall also be grounds for revocation of the Special Event permit. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage and publication, in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Introduction and First Reading by the Mounds View City Council on June 9, 2008. Second Reading and Adoption by the Mounds View City Council on September 22, 2008. Publication Date: October 1, 2008 Rob Marty, Mayor Attest: Jim Ericson City Clerk-Administrator (seal) ORDINANCE SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 808 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 600 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 611 RELATING TO OUTDOOR SPECIAL EVENTS On September 22, 2008, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which created a new Chapter 611 of the Municipal Code which established the procedures and conditions associated with a Special Event permit for outdoor events. The definition of a Special Event is as follows: SPECIAL EVENT: Any concert, fair, show, festival, carnival, rally, party, tournament, street dance or other attended outdoor entertainment or celebration that is to be held on public or private property. An Outdoor Special Event permit would not be required for weddings, wedding receptions and graduation parties. The ordinance is on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Clerk Administrator. The ordinance is posted in its entirety on the City’s website, located at www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us. James Ericson, Interim Clerk-Administrator Item No:7D Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 Type of Business: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Ken Roberts, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update – Time Extension Introduction: City staff has been working on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. The Metropolitan Council is requiring all cities and local governments to update their plans by the end of 2008. However, because of delays in the update process, the city will not meet this deadline. As such, the City needs to request from the Metropolitan Council a time extension to complete the Comprehensive Plan update. Background: The City started the last Comprehensive Plan update in 1998 and finished it in 2001 with adoption by the City Council. Having broad public participation is a key to the success and acceptance of the document. To this end, the City formed a steering committee (task force) in 2007 to help with the plan update. They met several times in 2007 and 2008 to review and comment on the current Comprehensive Plan and to offer suggestions for changes to the Plan. When finished, the Comprehensive Plan should represent the culmination of the community’s vision for the city. On August 20, 2008, the planning commission received four updated elements or chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. They included the Introduction, Community Background, Land Use and Intergovernmental Coordination elements. At this meeting, the Commission members decided to review each of these updated elements on their own and bring comments back to the group at the next commission meeting. On September 3, 2008, the commission received the updated Housing and Implementation elements of the Comprehensive Plan. During the meeting, the commission provided staff with comments and questions about some of the statistics in the proposed housing element. They also requested that staff provide them with the latest version of the future land use map in an 11” by 17” size and in color for their review. Staff sent the commission these materials and the proposed Economic Development Element on September 11, 2008. Discussion: As Council is aware, the City has not had a Public Works Director for several months and Jim Ericson was the city’s Community Development Director for almost one year while serving as Acting Clerk-Administrator and Clerk-Administrator. This turn over in staff and hiring delays have slowed down the completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. The draft 2008 plan has nine chapters or elements. Since I joined the City in June, I, along with other City staff, have been reviewing and editing the elements. Staff had the Economic Development Commission (EDC) review and comment on the proposed Economic Development element. Staff incorporated their comments and changes into the draft element dated 8-26-08. Staff is waiting for information from the watershed district and from the City’s consulting engineer to complete the updates of the other elements of the Plan and to complete the local surface water management plan. Once the updates of the other elements are ready, City staff will submit them to the Planning Commission for review, comment and approval. I expect the commission will complete their work on the plan update by November 19, 2008. It is the intent of City staff to have the entire draft plan ready for council review and action by December 1, 2008. After the City Council approves the draft plan, the City must send it to the cities adjacent to Mounds View, the school district and the watershed district to allow them to review and comment on the proposed plan. This comment period could last up to six months but since the City is not proposing any major changes to the Plan, this review period should take much less than six months to complete. Once the City has received the comments from the neighboring cities, then the City may send the final draft plan to the Metropolitan Council for approval. I expect that the City will have the final draft plan ready for submittal to the Metropolitan Council by May 2009. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 7334 that requests Metropolitan Council approval of a time extension for completing the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________ Ken Roberts - Community Development Director Attachment: Resolution 7334 RESOLUTION NO. 7334 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A TIME EXTENSION FOR COMPLETING THE 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has started the required 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Mounds View desires to complete the plan update in a thorough and timely manner; and WHEREAS, the City needs additional time to complete the required plan update; and WHEREAS, the City expects the Planning Commission to complete their work on the Plan update by November 19, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City expects the City Council to approve the draft plan update by December 31, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City should have the final draft plan complete and ready to submit to the Metropolitan Council by May 2009; and WHEREAS, the City will update its fiscal devices and official controls (if necessary) by December 2009. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council does hereby authorize City staff to request the Metropolitan Council approve a time extension to complete the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. Adopted this 22th day of September 2008. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: James Ericson, City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 7E Type of Business: Council Business Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief Item Title/Subject: Amending Section 702.01, Subdivision 13 relating to crimes against public safety and health Background The City of Mounds View prosecuting attorney advised that the above referenced section of City Code does not clearly prohibit discharging a weapon or air gun in the city. To correct this deficiency the prosecutor recommends adding the following phrase to Subd. 13b (2): “and it shall be unlawful for any person to aim or discharge a weapon or air gun within the limits of the municipality. This amendment would satisfy the intention of the ordinance by prohibiting any discharge of a weapon or air gun within the city limits, regardless of whether the discharge had an immediate endangerment to anyone. This amendment will also allow successful prosecution of cases where weapons or air guns are pointed or discharged at people, animals, houses, cars etc., Recommendation Staff recommends council approve the amendment. ___________________________ Mike Sommer Police Chief ORDINANCE 815 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 702.01, SUBDIVISION 13 RELATING TO CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH The City of Mounds View ordains: SECTION 1. Section 702.01, Subdivision 13b(2) is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined: (2) It shall be unlawful for any person within the limits of the Municipality to handle or have in their possession or under their control any weapon, air gun, switchblade knife or any other dangerous or deadly weapon and it shall be unlawful for any person to aim or discharge a weapon or air gun within the limits of the municipality. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its publication in the official City newspaper. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 22nd Day of September, 2008 SECOND READING and ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on the 13th day of October, 2008. Publication Date: October 22, 2008 Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Jim Ericson, Clerk - Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 7F Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 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 7336 Approving Traffic Calming Elements On Red Oak Drive For The 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project Background: On February 11, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7223 creating the Streets and Utilities Committee. On March 24, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7245 appointing the members to the Streets and Utilities Committee. On June 14, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee held a Public Meeting to review several specific design issues on the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project and to get feedback from the public. On July 28, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7307 authorized development of a traffic calming plan for Red Oak Drive from Long Lake Road to Hillview Road, subject to review and approval by the Streets and Utilities Committee and the City Council. On August 18, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee adopted recommendations regarding the elements of the traffic calming plan for Red Oak Drive, for forwarding to the City Council. On August 25, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7327 to locate the parking lane for Red Oak Drive from Hillview Road to Long Lake Road along its west side. On September 2, 2008 the City Council reviewed and discussed the August 18, 2008 recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Committee regarding the Red Oak Drive traffic calming plan as an agenda item of their Work Session. Members of the Streets and Utilities Committee were present to participate in the discussion with the City Council. Discussion: Based on the actions of the Streets and Utilities Committee and the discussion of the September 2, 2008 City Council Work Session, the recommendations for the Red Oak Drive traffic calming plan are being presented to the City Council for consideration of formal adoption via resolution. A review of the relevant issues is given below. Due to its length, the Staff Report from September 2, 2008 is not included with this document. Please refer to that previous Staff Report as necessary for additional background information on these issues. There are two elements included in the recommendation of the Streets and Utilities Committee for traffic calming on Red Oak Drive – chokers, and pedestrian crosswalk pavement markings. Chokers The recommendation of the Streets and Utilities Committee was that eight chokers be constructed on Red Oak Drive, at the following locations: x Intersection with Hillview Road – north side x Intersection with Sherwood Road – both north and south sides x Intersection with Ardan Drive – both north and south sides x Mid-block between Ardan Drive and Long Lake Road. Two chokers to be installed, evenly spaced. x Intersection with Long Lake Road – south side After discussion at their Work Session, the City Council agreed in general with the recommendation on chokers. However, they requested one revision to the plan – that one of the chokers at the intersection of Ardan Avenue be deleted, and instead be located approximately mid-block between Hillview Road and Sherwood Road. The overall number of chokers would remain at eight. Council further stated that Staff should review the intersection at Ardan Avenue and recommend which of the two chokers should be removed. Staff has reviewed the situation and offers the following: Recommendation – based on traffic calming From a strictly traffic calming perspective, removal of the north choker at Ardan Avenue is recommended. South bound traffic will be required to stop at the stop sign at Ardan Avenue, so the choker at that location will have no additional affect on vehicle speed. However, as the vehicle accelerates away from the stop sign, the choker on the south side of Ardan Avenue should have an effect on the driver, as they will be entering a more narrow section of the road. It is the understanding of Staff that the primary reason for the installation of chokers on Red Oak Drive is traffic calming. If that is the case, then it is recommended that the north choker at Ardan Avenue be deleted. Resolution 7336 has been prepared in accordance with this recommendation. Furthermore, drawings C6.01 and C6.02 have been revised since the September 2, 2008 Work Session, and now show the choker on the north side of Ardan Avenue eliminated. These revised drawings are included with this Staff Report for information. Note that the mid-block choker between Hillview Road and Sherwood Road is proposed to be located adjacent to 8016 Red Oak Drive. Alternate – based on pedestrian movement & safety Ardan Avenue is identified as a pedestrian corridor on the Comprehensive Trails and Sidewalks Plan. A copy of the Plan is attached for reference. Groveland Park is located on the north side of Ardan Avenue, one block west of Red Oak Drive. Therefore, it is likely that when Ardan Avenue is reconstructed under the Street and Utility Improvement Program, the pedestrian corridor will be located along its north side. If the pedestrian corridor were located on the north side of Ardan Avenue, then from a pedestrian movement and safety standpoint, the choker along Red Oak Drive on the north side of Ardan Avenue would be preferred. However, the choker on the north side of Ardan Avenue has not been recommended to be kept, due to the following reasons: x As mentioned previously, it is our understanding that the primary purpose of the choker is traffic calming, not pedestrian movement. x The location of the pedestrian corridor along Ardan Avenue has not been determined yet. Ardan Avenue is not scheduled for reconstruction until 2015 & 2016, so the location of the corridor is subject to change until that time. x It would be possible to add a choker on the north side of Ardan Avenue at Red Oak Drive in the future when Ardan Avenue is reconstructed. If the Council does not agree with the reasons stated above, they may choose to indicate that their preference is to keep the choker on the north side of Ardan Avenue and eliminate the choker on the south side. Resolution 7336 would need to be modified accordingly. Second Alternate – increase the number of chokers As discussed above, an argument can be made for the choker on each side of Ardan Avenue. The south choker is considered better from a purely traffic calming perspective. The north choker may be better from a pedestrian movement perspective. After consideration, if the Council feels that both chokers at Ardan Avenue are warranted, they could choose to keep both and simply add a ninth choker at the mid-block location between Hillview Road and Sherwood Road. Addition of a ninth choker would increase the project cost by approximately $3,000 to $4,000. As with the first alternate, if Council were to choose this layout, Resolution 7336 would need to be updated accordingly. Pedestrian Crosswalk Pavement Markings The Streets and Utilities Committee also recommended that pedestrian crosswalks be striped on Red Oak Drive at major intersections. The crosswalks are intended to have a calming affect on the drivers. Staff recommends the use of “zebra” style crosswalks for greater visual impact. Crosswalks would be located in an east-west direction across Red Oak Drive only. No north-south crosswalks parallel to Red Oak Drive were recommended by the Committee. Locations proposed for the crosswalks are stated below. Attached drawings C6.01 and C6.02 show the locations graphically. x Intersection with Hillview Road – both north and south sides x Intersection with Ardan Avenue – both north and south sides x Intersection with Long Lake Road – south side The locations stated above are all indicated as proposed pedestrian corridors on the Comprehensive Trails and Sidewalks Plan. Resolution 7336 has been prepared to include the crosswalks as stated above. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution 7336 approving traffic calming elements on Red Oak Drive for the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project. The locations of the chokers have been intentionally stated in a fairly general way in Resolution 7336, to allow minor modifications during final design. For the same reason, the layout drawings also have not been referenced in Resolution 7336. Keep in mind that the final construction plans will need to come before the Council for approval, so Council will have one more opportunity to review the final locations of the chokers at that time. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer Attachments: x Resolution 7336 x Comprehensive Trails and Sidewalks Plan x Red Oak Drive Layout Drawings (C6.01 and C6.02 – revised 9-17-08) Resolution 7336 Page 1 RESOLUTION 7336 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING TRAFFIC CALMING ELEMENTS ON RED OAK DRIVE FOR THE 2009 – 2010 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7223 adopted by the City Council on Feb. 11, 2008, the Streets and Utilities Committee was created; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee adopted recommendations for various design issues of the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2008 Resolution No. 7307 was adopted by the City Council approving various preliminary design issues for the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project, including direction for development of a traffic calming plan for Red Oak Drive; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee adopted recommendations regarding the elements of the traffic calming plan for Red Oak Drive; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2008 the City Council discussed the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Committee for the traffic calming elements on Red Oak Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1.The traffic calming elements on Red Oak Drive to be included in the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project shall include chokers and crosswalk pavement markings. 2.A total of eight chokers shall be constructed on Red Oak Drive. The general locations of the chokers shall be: a.At the intersection with Hillview Road – north side. b.Between Hillview Road and Sherwood Road – one choker to be located approximately mid-block. c.At the intersection with Sherwood Road – both north and south sides. d.At the intersection with Ardan Avenue – south side. Resolution 7336 Page 2 e.Between Ardan Avenue and Long Lake Road – two chokers to be installed, approximately evenly spaced. f.At the intersection with Long Lake Road – south side. 3.Crosswalk pavement markings shall be placed in an east-west direction across Red Oak Drive at the following locations: a.Intersection with Hillview Road – both north and south sides b.Intersection with Ardan Avenue – both north and south sides c.Intersection with Long Lake Road – south side Adopted this 22nd day of September 2008. ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (ATTEST) ____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFSt. Paul Office2335 West Highway 36St. Paul, MN 55113Phone: 651-636-4600Fax: 651-636-1311PRINT NAME:¤SIGNATURE:DATESURVEYAPPROVEDDESIGNEDDRAWNLIC. NO.DATEBONESTROOwww.bonestroo.com K:\435\43507129\Cad\Dwg\Red Oak Drive chokers2.dwg Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:10:47 AM20082009-2010 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTMOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTARED OAK DRIVE CHOKERS2############MSNPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERMINNESOTA.JOSEPH R. RHEIN2378111/24/08RED OAK DRIVE CHOKERS2STREET IMPROVEMENTSRED OAK DRIVE CHOKERSC6.01 WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFSt. Paul Office2335 West Highway 36St. Paul, MN 55113Phone: 651-636-4600Fax: 651-636-1311PRINT NAME:¤SIGNATURE:DATESURVEYAPPROVEDDESIGNEDDRAWNLIC. NO.DATEBONESTROOwww.bonestroo.com K:\435\43507129\Cad\Dwg\Red Oak Drive chokers2.dwg Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:12:55 AM20082009-2010 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTMOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTARED OAK DRIVE CHOKERS2############MSNPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERMINNESOTA.JOSEPH R. RHEIN2378111/24/08RED OAK DRIVE CHOKERS2STREET IMPROVEMENTSRED OAK DRIVE CHOKERSC6.02 Item No. 7G Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 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 7338 Approving The Policy To Address Non-Conforming Driveways Within The Street and Utility Improvement Program Background: On October 22, 2007, the City Council approved the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Task Force for the Street and Utility Improvement Program. The approved recommendations included that all driveways within each project area receive a concrete apron adjacent to the concrete curb. The City Code has existing requirements regarding driveways for residential properties. The requirements pertain to the number of driveways allowed, as well as the width allowed for each driveway. On August 18, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee reviewed the issue of non-conforming driveways and adopted recommendations for forwarding to the City Council. On September 2, 2008, as an agenda item of their Work Session the City Council reviewed and discussed the August 18, 2008 recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Committee regarding non-conforming driveways. Members of the Streets and Utilities Committee were present to participate in the discussion with the City Council. A copy of the Staff Report from the September 2, 2008 Work Session is included with this Staff Report for reference. Discussion: Based on the actions of the Streets and Utilities Committee and the discussion of the September 2, 2008 City Council Work Session, the recommendations regarding a policy to address non-conforming driveways within the Street and Utility Improvement Program are being presented to the City Council for consideration of formal adoption via resolution. A review of the relevant issues follows. Given the information provided in the attached Staff Report from September 2, 2008, only a brief review of each issue is stated below. Multiple Street Access Points City Code allows for only one street access (driveway) per residential property. Our understanding of the consensus reached during the discussion at the Work Session is that more than one driveway access to a residential property will be allowed only if all of the following circumstances are met: - The additional access existed prior to adoption of Ordinance 642 in Jan. 2000 which limited residential properties to one street access - The additional access has an existing improved surface (no soil driveways will be allowed to be kept as an additional access) - The property owner must request that the additional access be kept - The City must deem that the additional access is not a danger or public safety hazard - The property owner must be 100% responsible for the cost of the additional access Driveway width and setbacks City Code states the maximum allowable curb cut width for driveways based on land use type. For single family residential properties, the maximum allowable curb cut width is 24 feet. The minimum setback of the curb cut as stated in the Code as 3 feet for residential districts. Our understanding of the consensus reached during the discussion at the Work Session regarding the approach to driveways that do not comply with the width and setback requirements is as follows: - The driveway will be brought into compliance with the City Code as part of the Street and Utility Improvement Project if possible. - If an existing driveway exceeds the maximum allowable width of 24 feet, and the City determines it is not possible to bring the width into compliance with City Code, the property owner will be responsible for 100% of all costs associated with the portion of the driveway in excess of the 24 foot width. Agreement It is recommended that for any multiple driveway access or any driveway in excess of the maximum Code with that is allowed to remain in place, the property owner sign an Agreement with the City to recognize the condition and to agree to payment terms for it. The City of Spring Lake Park encountered a similar situation during their street reconstruction program from 1999 – 2004. The City developed a form for property owners with multiple driveway accesses or extra-wide driveways to make application to the City to allow the condition to remain. The form used by Spring Lake Park is included with this Staff Report for illustrative purposes. The Agreement form developed by Mounds View would need to address many of these same issues. It could be along the lines of a modified version of the Spring Lake Park form, or be developed under a completely different format. Input and review of the City Attorney would be necessary regarding the Agreement form. Recommendation: Resolution 7338 has been prepared in accordance with the preceding discussion and is included with this Staff Report for consideration by the City Council. Each issue within the Resolution has been identified separately, in the event that Council wishes to revise the specific parameters of any individual issue. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 7338 Approving The Policy To Address Non-Conforming Driveways Within The Street and Utility Improvement Program Respectfully Submitted, Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer Attachments: x Resolution 7338 x Staff Report – Sept. 2, 2008 Work Session – Non-Conforming Driveways x Example Curb Cut Application Form – City of Spring Lake Park Resolution 7338 Page 1 RESOLUTION 7338 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING THE POLICY TO ADDRESS NON-CONFORMING DRIVEWAYS WITHIN THE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7176 adopted by the City Council on Oct. 22, 2007, the Street and Utility Improvement Program was established; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7223 adopted by the City Council on Feb. 11, 2008, the Streets and Utilities Committee was created; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7245 adopted by the City Council on March 24, 2008, the members of the Streets and Utilities Committee were appointed; and WHEREAS, Chapter 1121 of the City Code limits single family properties to one curb cut for driveway access from the public street; and WHEREAS, Chapter 1121 of the City Code also limits the maximum allowable width of a curb cut for driveway access from the public street to a single family property to 24 feet; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee adopted recommendations regarding non-conforming driveways within the Street and Utility Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2008 the City Council discussed the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Committee for non-conforming driveways within the Street and Utility Improvement Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1.Multiple driveway accesses to single family residential properties will be allowed on the projects under the Street and Utility Improvement Program only if all of the following conditions are met: a.The access beyond the primary access existed prior to January 2000, or has been permitted by the City through an approved variance or other acceptable means. b.The access in question has an improved surface in compliance with City Coder requirements. Resolution 7338 Page 2 c.The property owner makes formal request to the City that the access beyond the primary access be allowed. d.Upon review of the access in question, the City deems that it is not a danger and poses no public safety hazard. e.The property owner pays 100% of all associated costs with the work under the project to provide the additional access. 2.The curb cut for a driveway access to a single family property will be constructed in compliance with the maximum width and minimum setback requirements stated in the City Code per Ordinance 642 wherever possible. 3.The curb cut for a driveway access to a single family property will be allowed to exceed the maximum width requirement stated in the City Code per Ordinance 642 only if all of the following conditions are met: a.The width of the existing driveway at the edge of the street exceeds the maximum allowable curb cut width. b.The curb cut in question has been permitted by the City through an approved variance or other acceptable means. c.The City determines that it is not possible to reduce the width of the driveway to comply with the maximum allowable curb cut width. 4.In the case where a curb cut wider than the maximum stated by City Code for a single family property is allowed, the property owner shall pay 100% of all costs associated with the work to provide the following: a.The portion of the curb cut in excess of the maximum allowable width per City Code. b.The portion of the adjacent concrete apron in excess of the maximum allowable curb cut width per City Code. c.Any and all portion of the adjacent driveway within the public right of way in excess of the maximum allowable curb cut width per City Code that is reconstructed as part of the Street and Utility Improvement Project. Resolution 7338 Page 3 5.Where a multiple driveway access or a curb cut in excess of the maximum width is allowed for a single family property, the property owner shall be required to enter into a signed agreement with the City. Components of the agreement shall include the following: a.The agreement shall state the scope of the work b.The agreement shall state the cost of the work c.The agreement shall state the terms of payment for the work d.The agreement must be signed prior to any work being performed by the City on the driveway access in question. 6.The City shall establish the rates of cost for a multiple driveway access and for a driveway access in excess of the maximum width for a single family property. The rates shall be set either annually or for each individual project within the Street and Utility Improvement Program. Adopted this 22nd day of September 2008. ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (ATTEST) ____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 5 Meeting Date: September 2, 2008 Type of Business: WS City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To:Honorable Mayor and City Council From:Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer Item Title/Subject:Streets and Utilities Committee: Recommendation for Non-Conforming Driveways Background: On October 22, 2007, the City Council approved the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Task Force for the Street and Utility Improvement Program. The approved recommendations included that all driveways within each project area receive a concrete apron adjacent to the concrete curb. The City Code has existing requirements regarding driveways for residential properties. The requirements pertain to the number of driveways allowed, as well as the width allowed for each driveway. All driveways in the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project area were evaluated for non-conformance with City Code during the preparation of the feasibility report in December 2006 (when the project was previously proposed as the 2007-2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project). The following is a brief summary of the feasibility report findings. Multiple street access points Current City Code allows for one street access per residential property. As of December 2006, several properties were found in the project area that had more than one access. All of the properties with multiple street access points had the accesses in place prior to the ordinance being adopted by the City. Therefore Code would allow them to remain in place if the property owner so desired, unless the City deemed the access to be a danger or public safety hazard. The feasibility report recommended if a property owner with multiple access points chose to, and was allowed to, maintain more than one access point, then all costs associated with any access beyond the first be the complete responsibility of the property owner. Under the financing plan for the 2007-2008 project, the costs would have been added to the assessment for that property. It should be noted that there are properties within the project area that have a second, unimproved soil driveway access. Soil driveways are not allowed under City Code. Therefore a property owner would not be allowed to maintain their second soil access. Driveway widths and setbacks Current City Code allows a maximum driveway width of 24 feet within the public right of way and a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet. The December 2006 feasibility report found a number of existing driveways that did not meet the Code requirements. The recommendation of the feasibility report was that these driveways should be brought into compliance with the Code, if possible, as part of the street improvement project. Discussion: At their meeting of August 18, 2008, the Streets and Utilities Committee discussed the issue of non-conforming driveways. Staff prepared a memo to provide the information from the City Code and to present the recommendations from feasibility report on the previously proposed 2007-2008 street project. The Committee generally expressed support for the recommendations from the feasibility report. The Committee further recommended that in instances where driveway widths could not be brought into conformance with the Code (i.e. a driveway needed to be constructed wider than the 24-foot maximum width), all costs related to constructing the driveway wider than 24 feet be the responsibility of the property owner. The Committee passed a motion (by a 5-1 vote) recommending the following: x that the property owner be 100% responsible for the costs of a second driveway access, and x that the property owner be 100% responsible for all costs required to construct a driveway above and beyond the maximum 24-foot width, where approved by Staff. Per City Code, only properties with multiple accesses prior to adoption of the ordinance would be allowed to keep the additional access, and only if the City did not deem them to be a danger or public safety hazard. Also per Code, unimproved, soil access driveways would not be allowed as a second access. Implementation The new financing plan for the Street and Utility Improvement Program, adopted in October 2007, does not include any direct assessments to properties. Therefore, if the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Committee were to be implemented, a method would need to be developed to allow the City to assign the costs of the driveway improvements to the property owner. Staff recommends that a signed agreement should be entered into between the City and each property owner who is approved to keep a multiple driveway or an extra-wide driveway. The agreement should be entered into before construction occurs. The agreement would serve the following purposes: x It would establish the method for the City to collect payment from the property owner. Payment could be made in full by the property owner at the time of the project, or if they prefer, it could be added to their property taxes over a set period of time with a corresponding interest rate. (Similar to an assessment, but just for this specific item.) x It would provide the property owner with the cost of the work prior to it being done, so they could decide if they wish to proceed. x It would provide the construction managers with documentation for those properties that are approved to have a multiple driveway or a driveway wider than Code maximum Development of such an agreement form would require work by Staff, likely with from the City Attorney as well. It would also require determination of a standard cost to be charged for the driveway work. This could be expressed in terms of per foot of driveway width, so that it could be applied to all situations. The approach using a standard agreement could be applied to all nine projects to be done within the Street and Utility Improvement Program. The standard cost would simply be reviewed and updated as necessary for each project. Recommendation: Staff is seeking input from Council with regard to the recommendations from the Streets and Utilities Committee concerning non-conforming driveways. If Council is in agreement with the Committee recommendations, then Staff further seeks input from the Council regarding their implementation. Based on the discussion at their Work Session, if Council so desires, this information would be presented at an upcoming City Council meeting for formal consideration of approval and direction. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer CURB CUT REQUEST APPLICATION City of Spring Lake Park 1301 Eighty FirstAvenue Northeast Spring Lake Park, Minnesota 55432 Phone: (612) 784-6491 Fax: (763) 792-7257 To be Completed by Request Applicant NAME: STREET ADDRESS: SIGNATURE DATE City Official Use Only CURB CUT DISTANCE:LN. FT. CITY OFFICIAL VERIFICATION: SIGNATURE DATE Linear Feet of Curb Cut X’s Cost per Linear Foot = $ TOTAL DUE PIN NUMBER: For Office Use Only 20% VARIANCE APPROVED AND ATTACHED TO VERIFY DATE PAID: RECEIPT NUMBER: ASSESSED: FUND NUMBER: I hereby agree to the stated measurement, cost per linear feet, and the total amount due. I have also indicated above as to the preference of payment regarding my additional curb cut Preference of Payment: To be paid in full To be added to my assessments ADDITIONAL CURB CUT DETAILSATTACHED EXISTING HOUSE AND GARAGE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE STREET STREETExisting Concrete Driveway Rear Property Line Front Property Line Side Property LineSide Property LineCurb Line Curb L i n e ExistingAsphalt Driveway ??Proposed 2nd Curb Cut Location EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATION Existing Curb Cut ILLUSTRATE YOUR REQUEST PHONE: Item No. 7H Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 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 7339 Authorizing The Preliminary Survey Activities For Area C Of The Street and Utility Improvement Program Background: On October 22, 2007 the City Council approved Resolution 7116 establishing the Street and Utility Improvement Program. The Program includes 9 separate Projects, labeled as A – I. The Project for Area B is scheduled to be constructed in 2010. The potential Spring Creek Regional Pond, which has been preliminary investigated by the City, would also be located within Area B if it were constructed. If the pond were constructed, the recommended timing of the two projects is that the pond be constructed in the winter prior to the streets in Area B being reconstructed. Recent developments at Rice Creek Watershed District, including the adoption of new rules in February 2008, combined with the development of the Stormwater Infiltration Program (SIP) by the City in August 2008, have raised a question of whether it may be possible to eliminate the need for the Spring Creek Regional Pond. Discussion: Staff is working with Rice Creek Watershed District to investigate the question of whether or not the Spring Creek Regional Pond can be eliminated. However, the resolution of this issue may take some time, possibly 3 to 4 months or longer. Until the question is resolved, it is not prudent for the City to spend funds developing the Spring Creek Regional Pond further. However, if the ultimate answer to the question is that the Pond (or some form of it) is still required, by the time that is known it may not be possible to develop that project and still keep the street project for Area B on schedule for 2010. It is the opinion of Staff that the City should develop an alternate or backup plan in the case that the street project for Area B ends up being delayed due to the Spring Creek Regional Pond issue. The most appropriate approach would be to begin preliminary activities for the street project in Area C, so that if need be it could be moved up from its original schedule of construction in 2011 to 2010. In reviewing the “typical” schedule for a street and utility improvement project, the first activity to be done is the preliminary survey work. This is scheduled to be done in the autumn, approximately 18 months prior to the construction. For example, in Area C, scheduled for construction in 2011, the preliminary survey work would be done in 2009. However, if Area C is going to be ready as the alternate plan for construction in 2010, then the preliminary survey for Area C would need to be performed in the autumn of 2008. This issue has been considered by the Streets and Utilities Committee at their meeting of September 15, 2008. A copy of the materials provided to the Committee is included with this Staff Report for reference. After review of the issue, the Committee recommended (by a unanimous vote of 7-0) that the City authorize the preliminary survey activities for Area C to be done in the autumn of 2008. Although not part of the actual recommendation, in subsequent discussion the Committee also indicated the following: - The City continue to work diligently to attempt to resolve the Spring Creek Regional Pond question such that the project for Area B can be kept on schedule for 2010. - That performing the preliminary survey for Area C should not commit the City to the use of the consulting engineering firm that performs the survey, in the event that the City wishes to request proposals from consulting firms for that project. If the Spring Creek Regional Pond issue is resolved by sometime in January 2009, and the pond is no longer required, then it should be possible to continue development of the Area B project for 2010 as originally scheduled. Under that scenario, the preliminary survey data collected for Area C would simply “sit on the shelf” for 12 months until the Area C project began to be developed. However, if by January 2009 the Spring Creek Regional Pond issue is not resolved, or if it has been determined that the pond is still required, then it may be necessary to proceed with the next activity towards the development of the project for Area C, which would be to order the Feasibility Report. The estimated cost of the preliminary survey for Area C is approximately $35,000. The work is necessary at some point, either now or in the autumn of 2009, for the development of the street project for Area C. If the City does not perform the initial activities to begin preparing Area C as the backup plan, and Area B does end up being delayed, then it is probable that the City would have no street project in 2010, and the entire Street and Utility Improvement Program would be pushed back one year. Resolution 7339 has been prepared for consideration by the City Council. The resolution would authorize the preliminary survey for Area C. No additional work would be authorized by the resolution. Any further development of the project for Area C would require additional authorization by the Council at a future date. Resolution 7339 also states that no commitment for additional work on the street project in Area C is made to the engineering firm that performs the preliminary survey for Area C. The City will retain the right to select the consulting engineer who performs the subsequent work on that project. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution 7339 authorizing the preliminary survey activities for Area C of the Street and Utility Improvement Program. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer Attachments: x Resolution 7339 x Design Team memo to Street and Utilities Committee – Sept. 9, 2008 Resolution 7339 Page 1 RESOLUTION 7339 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING THE PRELIMINARY SURVEY ACTIVITIES FOR AREA C OF THE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7176 adopted by the City Council on Oct. 22, 2007, the Street and Utility Improvement Program was established; and WHEREAS, the Program identified project Areas A through H, corresponding to years 2009 through 2017; and WHEREAS, Area B is scheduled for construction in 2010 and Area C is scheduled for construction in 2011; and WHEREAS, the proposed Spring Creek Regional Pond would also be located in Area B; and WHEREAS, the City is currently investigating whether an alternative can be developed to eliminate the need for the Spring Creek Regional Pond; and WHEREAS, the schedule for Area B could be delayed depending upon the duration and outcome of the investigation; and WHEREAS, if Area B were delayed until 2011, the City desires to move Area C to 2010 to avoid a gap in the overall Program; and WHEREAS, the preliminary survey for Area C should be performed in 2008 to allow the possibility of construction in 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1.All necessary activities to perform the preliminary survey for the Street and Utility Improvement Project in Area C of the Street and Utility Improvement Program are hereby authorized. 2.Bonestroo is selected as the consulting engineering firm to perform the preliminary survey for the Street and Utility Improvement Project in Area C. Resolution 7339 Page 2 3.No commitment is made by the City of Mounds View to Bonestroo for any activities associated with the Street and Utility Improvement Project in Area C beyond the preliminary survey. The City retains its right for consulting engineer selection for all subsequent activities on the Project. 4.No activities beyond the preliminary survey are authorized for the Street and Utility Improvement Project in Area C. Adopted this 22nd day of September 2008. ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (ATTEST) ____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Memorandum To: Streets and Utilities Committee Members From: Design Team Date:September 9, 2008 Re: Update on Spring Creek Regional Pond Consider Preliminary Survey For Area C File No.: 435-08132-0 BACKGROUND At the August 18, 2008 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting, Staff presented information on the schedules for the Street Projects in Areas B and C, along with the potential Spring Creek Regional Pond. Due to the relationship of these projects, we recommended that the City consider proceeding with the preliminary survey for Area C, to allow for flexibility in the program scheduling if necessary. During discussion on the subject, the Committee requested an update on the Spring Creek Regional Pond issue. The consideration of the preliminary survey for Area C was suspended until Staff could report back. This memo is intended to update the Committee on the current status of this issue, to identify the anticipated course of events in the near future, and to present the recommendation regarding the preliminary survey for Area C. DISCUSSION City Staff met with Staff from the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) on September 2, 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to have an initial discussion whether, given the new rules adopted by RCWD since 2005 and the Stormwater Infiltration Program (SIP) adopted by the City, the SIP could be expanded over the course of the Street and Utility Improvement Program to take the place of some or all of the requirements of the Spring Creek Regional Pond. RCWD Staff was open to the discussion, and was accepting of the concept that the SIP could be expanded in lieu of the Spring Creek Regional Pond. The result of the meeting is that the Design Team will prepare a qualitative proposal to RCWD by the end of September. The proposal will identify the issue, state the concept of expanding the SIP, and layout the process for performing the necessary analysis and related activities. RCWD Staff will present the qualitative proposal to the RCWD Board for consideration at their meeting on October 8, 2008. Mounds View, Minnesota Project No: 435-08132-0 Street and Utilities Committee Page 2 If the RCWD Board accepts the proposal, the Design Team and City Staff will work with RCWD Staff to attempt to develop a written Agreement between RCWD and the City to expand the SIP and eliminate the requirement for the Spring Creek Regional Pond. RCWD Staff has already indicated in our meeting with them that the Agreement will need to detailed and specific in regards to the requirements and actions. The result of the meeting with RCWD Staff was positive and encouraging. It appears that there will be the opportunity to explore expanding the SIP to potentially eliminate the Spring Creek Regional Pond. However, the RCWD Board must also agree with this approach, and then the detailed Agreement must be worked out. Given the statements by RCWD Staff regarding the Agreement, it is likely that the development of the Agreement would be a thorough, methodical process that would take some amount of time. It is probably realistic to anticipate that the Agreement could take 3 months or longer to develop. It must also be kept in mind that the potential exists that an acceptable Agreement will not be able to be developed. SCHEDULE Assuming the RCWD Board accepts the proposal on October 8, 2008, by January 1, 2009 it should be known whether or not an acceptable Agreement will be able to be reached. If it appears an Agreement will be possible and will be completed shortly after January 1, 2009, then development of the Street Project in Area B should be able to proceed for 2010 as originally scheduled. Looking at the typical project schedule, the first activity for the Area B project would likely be the second Neighborhood Meeting, which would be held in March 2009. However, it must be kept in mind that although preliminary indications are positive, there is significant work to determine whether the concept will work and if an acceptable Agreement can be reached. There is a possibility that this approach could fail, or that an acceptable Agreement cannot be reached. If either of those scenarios occurred, then it would be necessary to reevaluate how to proceed on the question of the Spring Creek Regional Pond. As mentioned in previous correspondence, it would not be advisable to proceed with the Street Project in Area B until the question regarding the Spring Creek Regional Pond has been answered. Therefore, if by early 2009 the answer is not known if the expansion of the SIP would work and if an Agreement will be reachable, then it would be prudent for the City to be ready to proceed with the development of the Street Project in Area C as an alternate plan for 2010. That would allow sufficient time to resolve the Spring Creek Regional Pond issue, with Area B re-scheduled for 2011. If the alternate plan to develop the Street Project in Area C were necessary, it would be necessary to have the preliminary survey completed so that the Feasibility Report could be prepared. The preliminary survey would need to be completed this fall in 2008, with the Feasibility Report likely ordered in January 2009. This would allow the project for Area C to develop approximately per the typical project schedule. Again, the development of the project for Area C would only be considered if the Spring Creek Regional Pond issue, which impacts Area B, were not resolved in time to allow Area B to stay on schedule for 2010. Mounds View, Minnesota Project No: 435-08132-0 Street and Utilities Committee Page 3 RECOMMENDATION As stated in our memo to the Streets and Utilities Committee in August, it is our recommendation that the City perform the preliminary survey for Area C in fall 2008. Doing so would keep the City’s options open and provide it with the most flexibility, with essentially no associated risk. The preliminary survey of Area C would require authorization from the City Council. If the Streets and Utilities Committee agrees with our opinion, a Staff Report will be prepared for the City Council to consider authorizing the preliminary survey of Area C. Attachments: x August 11, 2008 Design Team Memo to Streets & Utilities Committee, including attachments Memorandum To: Streets and Utilities Committee Members From: Design Team Date:August 11, 2008 Re: Consider Preliminary Survey For Area C File No.: 435-08132-0 BACKGROUND The typical schedule for a project in the Street and Utility Improvement Program (see attached) calls for the Preliminary Survey to be performed in the autumn, two years before the construction is to take place. The Preliminary Survey is the data collected by a survey crew to record the location of all the physical features of the project site, existing elevations, etc – information that is necessary to prepare the Feasibility Report and perform the design of the project. For example, the Preliminary Survey for the project to be constructed in 2010 would be done this year, in the autumn of 2008. The 2010 project is the area identified as Area B on the map of the overall Street and Utility Improvement Program. A copy of the overall program map is attached for reference. The preliminary survey work for Area B was already done in 2004, when that area was previously proposed as the 2005 Street and Utility Improvement Project. DISCUSSION The potential Spring Creek Regional Storm Water Pond would also be located in Area B. The preferred timing of the two projects would have the pond being constructed during the winter / spring before the street project in Area B, to avoid construction equipment for the pond having to use the new streets. However, with the adoption of new rules by Rice Creek Watershed District since 2005, and with the revisions to the Mounds View raingarden / infiltration program, there is the possibility that the scope of the Spring Creek Regional Pond could change, being reduced significantly or potentially even eliminated. The answers to the questions on the Spring Creek Regional Pond won’t be known until the raingarden / infiltration program is developed further, and can be investigated as it applies to the 2003 Street and Utility Improvement Project area. In addition, discussion with Rice Creek Watershed District also needs to be held concerning whether or not potential excess infiltration features in future projects could be applied as credits towards the requirement of the Spring Creek Regional Pond. Mounds View, Minnesota Project No: 435-08132-0 Street and Utilities Committee Page 2 The questions concerning Spring Creek Regional Pond could raise doubt regarding the schedule of when and if that project proceeds. In turn, that could affect the schedule of the street project for Area B. In order to keep its options open, the City could consider authorizing the preliminary survey for Area C of the Street and Utility Program to be done in the autumn of 2008. This work would have been scheduled for the autumn of 2009 per the Program. If the survey were done, and the scenario occurred where the issues with Spring Creek Regional Pond are cleared up and there is no change to the schedule for the street project in Area B, then the survey data for Area C would simply sit on the shelf for a year until development of the Area C project starts. However, if circumstances came to pass that the schedule for the street project in Area B had to be delayed due to the Spring Creek Regional Pond issues, the City would be ready to proceed with the street project in Area C in 2010 and would not have to miss a year of construction in the Program. The cost of the preliminary survey for Area C is estimated to be approximately $35,000. Either way, the work is necessary at some point in the development of the street project for Area C, so the City would not be performing unnecessary work if it authorized the preliminary survey. The only question is the timing. RECOMMENDATION It is our opinion that performing the preliminary survey for Area C now would provide the City with the most flexibility, with essentially no associated risk. The only drawback is that the City would incur the expense of the survey now instead of in 2009. The preliminary survey of Area C would require authorization from the City Council. If the Streets and Utilities Committee agrees with our opinion, a Staff Report will be prepared for the City Council to consider authorizing the preliminary survey of Area C. Attachments: x Street and Utility Improvement Program Map x Typical Street and Utility Improvement Project Schedule Prepared January 24, 2008 Infrastructure Improvement Program Street and Utility Improvement Project Typical General Schedule The following is a typical generalized schedule for individual projects associated with the Mounds View Street and Utility Improvement Program which was adopted on October 22, 2007. Each project name will be based on the year(s) in which construction occurs. Data Collection / Survey Work Begins September 1, construction year-2 Neighborhood Meeting October, construction year-2 Order Feasibility Report December, construction year-2 Second Neighborhood Meetings (if needed)March, construction year-1 Public Improvement Hearing,April, construction year-1 Feasibility Report Approved, Project Ordered, Preparation of Plans and Specifications Authorized Plans and Specifications approved, Set Bid Date October, construction year-1 Permits from Other Agencies December, construction year-1 Open Bids January, construction year Award Construction Contract February, construction year Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting March, construction year Construction Begins (Phase 1)May/June, construction year Construction Completed (Phase 1)November, construction year Construction Begins (Phase 2)May/June, construction year +1 Placement of Bituminous Wear Surface (Phase 1)July/August, construction year +1 Construction Completed (Phase 2)November, construction year +1 Placement of Bituminous Wear Surface (Phase 2)July/August, construction year +2 * This is a “typical” schedule for projects associated with the Mounds View Street and Utility Improvement Program. Dates for specific projects, however, may be modified and/or revised as necessary to accommodate specific circumstances of that project. Item No: 08A Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 Type of Business: CA City Administrator Review: __________ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Barb Benesch, Community Development Technician Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will expire on December 31, 2008. 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 2007. The majority of the licenses are renewals, so at a minimum, they were licensed in 2007. The type of license they are applying for follows the company name. PNJ Tree & Landscaping Tree Trimming/Removal New Signs by RSG Sign Installation New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Item No: 08B Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 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 7324, Approving a Charitable Gambling Permit (Raffle) for the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club on April 3, 2009, located at The Mermaid. The New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary, a non-profit charitable organization, would like to hold a Raffle on April 3, 2009, at The Mermaid. The New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary is located in Vadnais Heights (3555 Willow Lake Blvd # 200), and they have more than 30 active members. This meets the requirements of the Mounds View City Code. The Gambling Control Board requires that local unit of government (city or county), pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the Premises Permit Application. This resolution (approving or denying the application) must be voted on and the resolution forwarded to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this gambling permit for the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary at the location and date stated above. Respectfully Submitted, Desaree M. Crane RESOLUTION NO. 7324 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE NEW BRIGHTON/MOUNDS VIEW ROTARY, A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION TO CONDUCT CHARITABLE GAMBLING (RAFFLE) ON APRIL 3, 2009 AT THE MERMAID WHEREAS, the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary has requested that the City Council allow them to conduct charitable gambling (raffle) at The Mermaid on April 3, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Gambling Control Board requires that the local unit of government (city or county) pass a resolution specifically approving or denying requests to conduct charitable gambling; and WHEREAS, the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary, is in compliance with all requirements of the Mounds View Municipal Code with regard to charitable gambling regulations; and WHEREAS, the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary has requested a one- day charitable gambling permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby authorize New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary, to conduct charitable gambling at The Mermaid, located at 2200 County Road 10 in Mounds View, on April 3, 2009. Adopted this 22nd day of September, 2008. _______________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ James Ericson, Clerk-Administrator (seal) Item No. 8H Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 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 7335 Authorizing A Request For A MnDOT Cooperative Agreement Project At The Intersection Of County Highway 10 And County Road H Background: As a result of the County Highway 10 corridor study, the City identified the need for a project to improve the intersection at County Highway 10 and County Road H. The project is currently programmed in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. The City has previously made application for and been awarded Federal funds towards the improvement project. The City has become aware of the opportunity to pursue Cooperative Agreement funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) that could also be applied towards the project. Discussion: The City of Mounds View currently has a project programmed in its CIP to perform improvements at the intersection of County Highway 10 and County Road H. The project would include replacement of the traffic signal, reconstruction of the intersection legs, and addition of other elements to improve safety at the intersection. The City has been awarded Federal funds in the amount of approximately $630,000 towards the project. The Federal funds are programmed for 2012. The use of Federal funds requires a 20% local match. The local match can come from any funding source other than a Federal source. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has a Cooperative Agreement program that is available to fund qualifying projects. Staff reviewed the proposed project for the intersection of County Highway 10 and County Road H, and feels that it is a worthwhile candidate to apply for the program. If the project were selected, the Cooperative Agreement funds could be counted towards the 20% requirement for the local match of the Federal funds for the County Highway 10 – County Road H intersection project. Applications for the current cycle of the Cooperative Agreement program were due by September 15, 2008. The funds awarded in that cycle would be for Fiscal Year 2010, which runs from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. The requirements of the Cooperative Agreement program would be that a construction contract for the project be awarded by June 30, 2010. The application process for the Cooperative Agreement program is relatively straightforward. Staff did prepare and submit an application for the County Highway 10 – County Road H intersection project by the required deadline. A copy of the materials submitted for the application is included with this Staff Report for reference. The materials contain more details on the description of the proposed improvements for the intersection. The amount applied for under the Cooperative Agreement program is $125,000. The Cooperative Agreement program application also requires a resolution of support from the City Council. Resolution 7335 has been prepared and is included with this Staff Report for consideration. If the County Highway 10 – County Road H intersection project were selected for funding through the Cooperative Agreement program, it is anticipated that the Federal funds would be able to be advanced to 2010 to align with the timing of the Cooperative Agreement funds. The Cooperative Agreement program has an annual application cycle, so if the County Highway 10 – County Road H project were not selected for funding at this time, the application could be re-submitted again next year for Fiscal Year 2011 Cooperative Agreement funds. The bulk of the materials submitted this year would be able to be easily updated for re-submittal next year if necessary. Ramsey County supports the application of Mounds View for Cooperative Agreement funds. A letter of support from the County is included in the application materials submitted. It is possible that the County may have some available funding to contribute towards the project as development proceeds. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 7335 authorizing a request for a MnDOT Cooperative Agreement project at the intersection of County Highway 10 and Count Road H. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer Attachments: x Resolution 7335 x Cooperative Agreement Application Submittal – Dated Sept. 12, 2008 Resolution 7335 Page 1 RESOLUTION 7335 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING A REQUEST FOR A MNDOT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROJECT AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY HIGHWAY 10 AND COUNTY ROAD H WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has identified the need for improvements to the intersection of County Highway 10 and County Road H; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements to the intersection include a new traffic signal; reconstruction of the intersection including designated left turn lanes on County Road H, and advanced signal flashers for traffic exiting I-35W; and WHEREAS, the project will address the traffic safety and operation of traffic on County Highway 10 which serves as the west leg of the I-35W interchange; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is requesting the financial participation of the Minnesota Department of Transportation through the Municipal Agreement Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is committed to providing the local share of the costs if the project is selected for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2010 Municipal Agreement Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota that the Minnesota Department of Transportation consider a proposal to replace the signal system and construct roadway improvements at the intersection of County Highway 10 and County Road H in the 2009 Cooperative Agreement program. Adopted this 22nd day of September 2008. ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor Resolution 7335 Page 2 (ATTEST) ____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 08J Meeting Date: September 22, 2008 Type of Business: Council Business City Administrator Review_____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief Item Title/Subject: Authorization to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Safe and Sober project Date of Report: September 22, 2008 Background: The Mounds View Police Department in partnership with the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department, the Police Departments of New Brighton, Roseville, Maplewood, St. Anthony Village, North St. Paul and White Bear Lake applied for and have been awarded a grant from the Department of Public Safety for the Safe and Sober project. The purpose of the grant is to allow agencies to conduct highly publicized, overtime enforcement projects addressing traffic safety issues with an emphasis on impaired driving and passenger protection use. The Safe & Sober Grant Program provides funds to law enforcement agencies to conduct stepped-up traffic enforcement and community outreach. Each year, requests for Safe & Sober overtime grants equal about twice the federal funding available. The grant funds are available on a cost reimbursement basis; costs are reimbursed after they are incurred and paid by the grantee agencies. The project year begins on October 1, 2008 and ends on September 30, 2009. The Mounds View Police Department was awarded a Safe and Sober grant in 2008-2009 in partnership with other Ramsey County Law Enforcement Agencies. The Mounds View Police Department will use the funds from the grant to pay officers to work various traffic enforcement projects. The Mound View Police grant award for 2008- 2009 is $9,000. Recommendation: Staff recommends Council authorize acceptance of the grant. _______________________ Respectfully submitted by Mike Sommer, Police Chief RESOLUTION 7341 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MOUNDS VIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR THE SAFE AND SOBER PROJECT FROM OCTOBER 1, 2008 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2009. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department along with the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department, New Brighton Police Department, White Bear Lake Police Department, St. Anthony Village Police Department, North St. Paul Police Department and the Roseville Police Department have applied for and been awarded a grant from the Department of Public Safety Safe and Sober program to conduct highly publicized, overtime enforcement projects addressing traffic safety issues; and, WHEREAS, the grant funds will cover overtime personnel costs incurred through Safe and Sober enforcement efforts which will be reimbursed to the city of Mounds View; and, WHEREAS, all allocated manpower resources will be on a volunteer basis, and will be on an officers scheduled time off; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby authorize the Mounds View Police Department to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety for the project entitled SAFE & SOBER COMMUNITIES during the period from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009; and, NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief of Police of the Mounds View Police Department is hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Mounds View Police Department, and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant. Adopted this 22nd day of September, 2008 _______________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Jim Ericson, Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) Corrections made by Councilmember Carol Mueller, Clerk -Administrator Ericson and Community Development Director Ken Roberts PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 Regular Meeting 5 August 11, 2008 6 Mounds View City Hall 7 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8 7:00 P.M. 9 10 11 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER at 7:05P.M. 12 13 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14 15 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Hull, Flaherty, and Mueller 16 17 NOT PRESENT: None. 18 19 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20 21 A. Monday, August 11, 2008, City Council Agenda 22 23 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve the Monday, August 11, 2008 Agenda as 24 Amended to add Item 7K 25 26 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27 28 5. PUBLIC INPUT 29 30 None. 31 32 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 33 34 A. Award for Police Department 35 36 Mayor Marty announced an award received from Minneapolis honoring the contributions of the 37 Mounds View Police force with the I35 W Bridge collapse. 38 39 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 40 41 A. Public Hearing to receive Public Input and pass upon Resolution 7312 42 Adopting a Special Assessment Levy for Service Availability Charges (SAC) 43 44 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. 45 Mounds View City Council August 11, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 2 1 Finance Director Beer explained the SAC charges to be assessed to property taxes. 2 3 Hearing no public comments, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 4 5 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7312, 6 Adopting a Special Assessment Levy for Service Availability Charges (SAC). 7 8 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9 10 B. Resolution 7314, Consideration of a Minor Subdivision for 5056 Greenwood 11 Drive and the Two Adjoining Properties to the South 12 13 Community Development Director Roberts provided an explanation of the requested minor 14 subdivision for 5056 Greenwood Drive and the two adjoining properties to the south. He then 15 said that this is really a lot line adjustment. This subdivision does require a park dedication fee 16 of $1,000 and the required easements will be dedicated. The Planning Commission has 17 recommended approval as proposed. 18 19 Clerk Administrator Ericson explained the justification for the recommended park dedication fee. 20 The reasoning behind the required fee is that there would be an additional demand placed on the 21 park system due to the additional developable lot made available by the subdivision. 22 23 Council Member Mueller indicated that she is concerned about fairly administering the fee 24 requirement and the formula the City is using to calculate to ensure equal treatment for anyone 25 subdividing a lot. 26 27 Council discussed having a consistent formula established for calculating the required park 28 dedication fee. Council asked to have this matter on a work session for discussion. 29 30 MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7314, 31 Consideration of a Minor Subdivision for 5056 Greenwood Drive and the Two Adjoining 32 Properties to the South. 33 34 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35 36 Mayor Marty noted that Council Members were wearing Festival in the Park shirts in support for 37 the Festival scheduled for this weekend. 38 39 C. Resolution 7319, Establishing the Components of the Program to Install 40 Infiltration Features in Conjunction with the Street and Utility 41 Improvement Program 42 43 44 Mounds View City Council August 11, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 3 Joe Rhein, consulting engineer with Bonestroo, explained that the purpose of the 1 recommendation is to bring the streets originally constructed 40 years ago into compliance with 2 current R.C.W.D. run-off regulations. The most cost effective way to do so is to use infiltration 3 features, such as rain gardens, along the boulevards. 4 5 Joe Rhein suggested an amendment to require homeowners to notify the City if any changes are 6 made within an infiltration area since the City is responsible for maintaining the swales. 7 8 Joe Rhein indicated that inspection is part of the MS4 program requirements. 9 10 Council Member Mueller asked what the depth of the swales would be. Joe Rhein indicated that 11 the maximum depth allowed by the rules would be 18 inches and the design would be for 12 to 12 15 inches with a draining to dry timeframe of 48 hours. 13 14 Mayor Marty said that he would want to have any modification by a homeowner to have the 15 approval of City Staff or the engineer. If they wish to change the swale or move it in any way, he 16 would like it reviewed. 17 18 Joe Rhein explained that it would be difficult for staff to try to manage each potential change that 19 homeowners may wish to make. He then suggested language that would require review of any 20 change to the size or shape but not for vegetation changes. 21 22 Council Member Mueller said that she feels this program should bring pride for residents and 23 looks forward to working with the Streets and Utilities Task Force on this matter. 24 25 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7319, 26 Establishing the Components of the Program to Install Infiltration Features in Conjunction with 27 the Street and Utility Improvement Program. 28 29 Joe Rhein reviewed the requested changes for Council. Council agreed to require language that 30 the resident would incur liability if the swale were changed without approval of the City. 31 32 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33 34 D. Resolution 7315, Authorizing a Step Increase for Heidi Heller, Planning 35 Associate 36 37 Assistant Clerk Administrator Crane reviewed Resolution 7315 for the Council. 38 39 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7315, 40 Authorizing a Step Increase for Heidi Heller, Planning Associate. 41 42 Community Development Director Roberts added that Ms. Heller has been of great help to him 43 during his short time with the City. 44 45 Mounds View City Council August 11, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 4 E. Resolution 7316, Appointing Election Judges to the 2008 Primary and 1 General Election 2 3 Assistant Clerk Administrator Crane reviewed Resolution 7316 and then said that the City needs 4 election judges and listed the requirements for election judges. 5 6 MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7316, 7 Appointing Election Judges to the 2008 Primary and General Elections. 8 9 F. Resolution 7320, Authorizing Out of State Travel and Conference 10 Attendance 11 12 Assistant Administrator Crane explained that CTV has contacted City staff about a conference in 13 Atlanta, Georgia, and Cable Coordinator VanAlstine is interested in attending. CTV has an extra 14 slot and will pay for the airfare, the conference and hotel. Many of the meals are part of the 15 conference and the only thing that the City is going to need to pay for would be ground 16 transportation, some meals, and any incidental fees. City staff feels that this is an excellent 17 resource for staff development at a low cost to the City. 18 19 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7320, 20 Authorizing Out of State Travel and Conference Attendance. 21 22 Council Member Flaherty said he feels this is an excellent opportunity for networking at little 23 expense to the City. He then asked if the backup is ready to cover any meetings while Ms. 24 VanAlstine is gone. 25 26 Assistant Administrator Crane confirmed that the backup staff is ready. 27 28 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 29 30 G. Resolution 7313, Authorizing the Purchase and Installation of 650 Neptune 31 R900 Radio Read Devices 32 33 Finance Director Beer explained that the City had a number of telephone read devices that have 34 been failing and Council had previously approved the purchase of 1200 devices to replace the 35 telephone read devices as there were about 900 that were not reading at all. 36 37 Council Member Stigney asked if there would be a more updated version available next year. 38 39 Finance Director Beer indicated that the meters, once purchased, have a life expectancy of 20 40 years. 41 42 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7313, 43 Authorizing the Purchase and Installation of 1300 Neptune R900 Radio Read Devices and 44 Amend the Labor Costs to Match the 1300 Devices. 45 Mounds View City Council August 11, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 5 1 Council Member Stigney indicated that the Resolution reads that these will be installed during 2 overtime, but he would prefer that they be installed, as much as possible, during regular hours to 3 avoid as much overtime as possible. 4 5 Council Member Flaherty asked whether there is enough overtime in the budget to allow for this 6 project. Finance Director Beer explained that it is about a 15 minute job to install one meter and 7 the staff plans to install them as time allows. 8 9 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 10 11 H. Resolution 7318, Authorization to Purchase Two Projectors 12 13 Cable Coordinator VanAlstine explained that this requested purchase comes from the event 14 center to better accommodate users of the event center, who have expressed repeated desires to 15 be able to rent projectors. Users of the event center have the option to use the projectors as 16 rental items. She then explained the Staff recommendation for purchasing these items. 17 18 Council Member Mueller supported the Staff recommendation and said that Ms. VanAlstine has 19 shown that funds can be saved for unnecessary expenditures and there is money in the budget for 20 this equipment. She then said that she would like to purchase one new projector for the 21 community center, removal of the projector at City Hall to be used at the Community Center and 22 install a new projector in City Hall. 23 24 Mayor Marty commented that it would be nice to have Council Meetings and Work sessions with 25 all of the lights on. He then said that he agrees with the Staff recommendation. 26 27 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7318, 28 Authorization to Purchase Two Projectors. 29 30 Council Member Stigney moved to amend the motion to the floor. 31 32 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To Purchase One or Two of the Projectors for the 33 Community Center and Allow Staff to Decide Whether to Purchase One or Two. 34 35 Ayes – 3 Nays – 2(Mueller/Marty) Amendment carried. 36 37 Ayes – 3 Nays – 2(Mueller/Marty) Motion as Amended carried. 38 39 40 I. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 811, an Ordinance 41 Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point Energy Natural Gas 42 Operations within the City of Mounds View 43 44 Mounds View City Council August 11, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 6 Mayor Marty said that in light of the City’s budget and street and infrastructure reconstruction 1 program he feels that these funds are necessary. 2 3 Clerk Administrator Ericson said that he has requested feedback from the Chamber. 4 5 Mayor Marty said that he does not see how some of the obligations planned by the City could be 6 met without this fee. 7 8 Council Member Mueller said that in the position statement received from the Twin Cities North 9 Chamber they really are saying that the franchise fee is an unfair burden to the cost of doing 10 business in this community. She then said that the franchise fee is the most fair and equitable fee 11 that exists in the city as it is based on energy consumption. 12 13 Council Member Mueller said that she feels the franchise fee is a more fair and equitable way of 14 raising revenue rather than the sales tax that some communities are using to help to help balance 15 budgets. 16 17 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Introduce Ordinance 811, an 18 Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point Energy Natural Gas Operations within 19 the City of Mounds View. 20 21 Finance Director Beer indicated that Center Point has one customer in the City. 22 23 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 24 25 J. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 812, an Ordinance 26 Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy Electric and Natural Gas 27 Operations within the City of Mounds View 28 29 Mayor Marty noted this is the same as the previous item. 30 31 Finance Director Beer indicated that the City needs to provide 60 days notice to Xcel, which 32 means that this must be approved by the end of September to meet the required deadlines. 33 34 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Introduce Ordinance 812 an 35 Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy Electric and Natural Gas Operations 36 within the City of Mounds View. 37 38 Council Member Flaherty asked for the information previously requested if the franchise fee is 39 reduced by 1% or .5% what the loss of revenue would be. Staff agreed to prepare the 40 information and forward it to Council. 41 42 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 43 44 K. Continued Discussion on the Structure of the Public Works Director Position 45 Mounds View City Council August 11, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 7 1 Clerk Administrator Ericson explained that the City interviewed a candidate on July 28th and the 2 individual was ranked highly and considered the top candidate. The Council has discussed 3 alternative employment arrangements such as a contract engineering service. Staff has put 4 together a letter offering employment however, the applicant has declined the offer. The 5 candidate has submitted a counter proposal to provide contract services to the City through his 6 contract agency. 7 8 Council Member Mueller said that she feels that the offer would be a clear conflict of interest and 9 she is not interested in the proposal. 10 11 Council Member Flaherty said that he would be interested in hearing a public presentation on 12 what the candidate could provide for the City. Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that if that 13 is the desire of the Council, he would like the process opened up to other interested parties. He 14 then said that he would like to wait to see what the compensation study determines. 15 16 Mayor Marty indicated that he is not comfortable with the requirement or request that the City 17 award all work associated with the street reconstruction projects to the individual’s firm. He then 18 said that he would not be comfortable with changing engineers on the street project midway 19 through the process because of the size of the project. 20 21 Council Member Stigney indicated that he would not want to talk to this individual based on his 22 requirement that the City use his engineering services. 23 24 Council Member Mueller suggested that Council consider hiring a less experienced person and 25 allowing that person to train with the consultant engineer and grow in the position. 26 27 Council will consider this matter again, as soon as the compensation study is complete. 28 29 8. CONSENT AGENDA 30 31 A. Licenses for Approval 32 B. Resolution 7317, Authorization for Additional Part-Time Hours for Code 33 Enforcement in the Community Development Department. 34 C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, August 25, 2008 at 7:05pm, First Reading 35 of an Ordinance to Rezone the Properties at 2865 County Highway 10 and 36 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road from R-O, Residential-Office and R-1, Single 37 Family Residential to R-4, High Density Residential and to Consider 38 Resolution 7321, a Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, and 39 Preliminary Plat for a Senior Housing Development on Properties located at 40 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road. 41 D. Set a Public Hearing for August 25, 2008 at 7:10 pm for the Second Reading 42 and Adoption of Ordinance 811, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise 43 Fee on CenterPoint Energy Natural Gas Operations within the City of 44 Mounds View. 45 Mounds View City Council August 11, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 8 E. Set a Public Hearing for August 25, 2008 at 7:15 pm for the Second Reading 1 and Adoption of Ordinance 812, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise 2 Fee on Xcel Energy Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the City of 3 Mounds View. 4 5 Council Member Flaherty requested that Item B be removed for discussion. 6 7 Council Member Mueller requested Item C be removed for discussion. 8 9 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A, D, and E. 10 11 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 12 13 B. Resolution 7317, Authorization for Additional Part-Time Hours for Code 14 Enforcement in the Community Development Department 15 16 Council Member Flaherty said that this shows that the City is serious about code enforcement, as 17 he has heard repeatedly that code enforcement is very important to residents. 18 19 MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7317, 20 Authorization for Additional Part-Time Hours for Code Enforcement in the Community 21 Development Department. 22 23 Mayor Marty asked that this item be put in the 2009 budget to allow for it. 24 25 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26 27 C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, August 25, 2008 at 7:05pm, First Reading 28 of an Ordinance to Rezone the Properties at 2865 County Highway 10 and 29 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road from R-O, Residential-Office and R-1, Single 30 Family Residential to R-4, High Density Residential and to Consider 31 Resolution 7321, a Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, and 32 Preliminary Plat for a Senior Housing Development on Properties located at 33 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road 34 35 Council Member Mueller invited interested residents to come to the public hearings to have their 36 concerns heard. 37 38 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Approve Setting a Public 39 Hearing for Monday, August 25, 2008 at 7:05pm, First Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone the 40 Properties at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road from R-O, 41 Residential-Office and R-1, Single Family Residential to R-4, High Density Residential and to 42 Consider Resolution 7321, a Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, and Preliminary Plat 43 for a Senior Housing Development on Properties located at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 44 & 8020 Groveland Road. 45 Mounds View City Council August 11, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 9 1 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 2 3 4 5 9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 6 7 Mayor Marty, on Page 5, eviction removal service he is wondering if this is for an abatement. 8 Finance Director Beer indicated it was. 9 10 Council Member Stigney asked why the Biff’s cost more at Lakeside Park than the other parks. 11 Finance Director Beer indicated he would need to investigate the answer to that question but his 12 guess would be that they require more service. 13 14 Mayor Marty asked for information on the repairs, buildings and grounds costs. Finance Director 15 Beer explained that was a cost for the cleaning service for the community center and city hall. 16 17 Mayor Marty asked what the fee for the license plate replacement. Finance Director Beer 18 indicated that they are replacing the actual plates. 19 20 Council Member Flaherty asked about the Waterworks charge. Finance Director Beer indicated 21 that is a radio read. 22 23 Council Member Mueller asked about the automotive charge and she would like to know which 24 amount comes out of the forfeiture fund. Finance Director Beer indicated the $12,500 came out 25 of forfeiture. 26 27 Mayor Marty said he had a couple of questions on the Kennedy & Graven bill and whether those 28 would be invoiced to the development. Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that he would 29 make a note to the accountant to have those costs billed out. 30 31 Council Member Flaherty asked about the charge from the New Brighton Mounds View Rotary; 32 he thought that the membership included meals. Finance Director Beer indicated that this is for 33 meals for the Chief as he has been going to the meetings. 34 35 Mayor Marty asked about the laptop charges. Finance Director Beer indicated that is for the 36 SCADA equipment that has wireless access. 37 38 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve Just and Correct Claims as presented. 39 40 Ayes - -- 5 Nays - -- 0 Motion carried. 41 42 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 43 44 A. April 28, 2008 City Council Minutes. 45 Mounds View City Council August 11, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 10 1 Mayor Marty noted that there was an article concerning “commas” in the Star Tribune and said 2 he would bring it in. 3 4 Council Member Hull Page 2, Line 45 and Line 19 the name is spelled incorrectly. 5 6 Mayor Marty, Page 6, Line 32, monitoring of the rippling of County Road H2 and “reoccurs” not 7 “reoccurring”. 8 9 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Approve the Minutes of April 28, 2008 as 10 Amended. 11 12 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13 14 B. July 14, 2008, City Council Minutes 15 16 Council Member Flaherty, Page 1, Line 25 remove the word “there”. 17 18 Mayor Marty noted that Item B was removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion and then 19 list it below as is. 20 21 Council Member Flaherty, Page 4, Line 31 insert “asked”. 22 23 MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve the Minutes of July 14, 2008. 24 25 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26 27 11. REPORTS 28 29 A. Reports of Mayor and Council 30 31 Mayor Marty noted that he and Mr. Ericson met with Representative McCollum and others 32 regarding the intersection of I- 35W and County Road H at Arden Hill City Hall.. 33 34 Mayor Marty indicated he would like to have Mr. Ericson and Ms. Crane meet to discuss salary 35 and incentives with Event Coordinator Matt Baumann to ensure that the City does not lose him 36 as he has done a great job with the community center. 37 38 Mayor Marty said that he was approached by citizens for contracting out for police services and, 39 when the council met with Spring Lake Park, their Council asked about any interest in merging 40 police forces. Since then, he has discussed this with Staff and there is the potential to save 41 $1,000,000 per year by contracting for police services with Ramsey County Sherriff’s 42 Department for police services. 43 44 Mayor Marty noted that Festival in the Park is this weekend. 45 Mounds View City Council August 11, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 11 1 Council Member Flaherty reported on National Night Out and noted there were 30 parties in the 2 City. 3 4 Council Member Mueller reported on Festival in the Park events. 5 6 B. Reports of Staff 7 8 1. Mounds View Festival in the Park – August 16th and 17th, 2008 (verbal 9 announcement) 10 11 Clerk Administrator Ericson noted that Northwest Youth and Family Service’s Taste of 12 Northwest is coming up and he will provide more information on that to the council. 13 14 Clerk Administrator Ericson noted that Staff is working with Mn/DOT on the soundwall but it is 15 still about 20 years out on Mn/DOT’s priority list. 16 17 Clerk Administrator Ericson said that Jeremiah Anderson would be recognized as a Captain on 18 the Fire Department at the next council meeting. 19 20 C. Reports of City Attorney 21 22 None. 23 24 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, September 2, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. 25 Next Council Meeting: Monday, August 25, 2008, at 7 p.m. 26 27 13. ADJOURNMENT 28 29 The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. 30 31 Transcribed by: 32 33 34 Joan Lenzmeier 35 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 36 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Executive Session Date: September 8, 2008 Mounds View City Hall – Conference Room A/B 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 Time: 10:05 p.m. 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Mayor Marty, Council Members Stigney, Flaherty, Hull and Mueller, Clerk-Administrator Jim Ericson. 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS UNION LABOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS AND PENDING UNION MEDIATION. City Staff reviewed and discussed the status of the Public Works Collective Bargaining Unit contract. 10:30 p.m. MEETING ADJOURNED Respectfully Submitted: Desaree M. Crane Assistant City Clerk-Administrator 339488v2 SJR MU125-11 Kennedy 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 & Graven (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven.com C H A R T E R E D SCOTT J. RIGGS Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9260 Email: sriggs@kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM Date: September 17, 2008 To: Jim Ericson, City Clerk-Administrator From: Scott J. Riggs, City Attorney Re: Mounds View Project Status Report MU125-11: Administration. General discussions with staff regarding various City matters. Review intermittent noise issue (Central Sandblasting) and advise City staff regarding options. Review kickboxing event issue and ordinance compliance. Matters are presently pending. MU210-4: Charter Commission. Consult with City staff regarding Charter issues, amendments and ordinance implementation. Matter is presently pending. MU210-26: The Mermaid. Review plat amendment and PUD amendment. Work on draft of plat opinion. Review correspondence from owner. Waiting for further title work and revised plat from applicant. Consult with City staff regarding preliminary plat and changes to platted lot, etc. Discussion with applicant’s attorney. Matter is presently pending. MU210-43: Silver Lake Woods Condominium Association. Work with City staff to determine requirements that SLWCA needs to undertake regarding roads. Work with attorney Pat Brinkman regarding matter. Discuss update to Petition and Waiver Agreement and draft Street Transfer Agreement. Forward Agreements to SLWCA attorney. Matter is presenting pending. Mr. Jim Ericson September 17, 2008 Page 2 339488v2 SJR MU125-11 MU210-106: Labor, General. Review information concerning provision in the Contract regarding being called in early and subsequent issues. Review statutes and Contract. Advise City staff re options. Matter is presently pending. MU210-147: County Road 10 Trail Segments. Review information re IRS lien levied against Jay Brothers (contractor in this matter). Consult with City staff. Matter is presently pending. MU210-163: Xcel Easement, Etc. Consult with City staff re same. Continue to work with Xcel Energy and City staff re shut-off valve issue and easement issues. Review additional information received from Xcel and advise City staff regarding Xcel’s correspondence. Matter is presently pending. MU210-174: Ordahl Minor Subdivision. Review proposed subdivision materials. Consult with City staff re title work requirements. Review updated title work. Draft easements and trust documents and forward to City staff. Matter is presently pending. MU210-175: Senior Housing Project. Review submitted planning materials and work on matter. Consult with City staff. Plat Opinion forwarded to City staff on August 15, 2008. Matter is presently pending. MU210-176: Airport Issues. Review new information concerning possible development at the Blaine Airport and surrounding geographic area and its possible effects on the City. Matter is presently pending. EDA MATTERS: MU205-13: EDA General. Review and propose updates to EDA By-Laws, etc. Provide initial draft of updated By-Laws. Review Risdall Contract regarding branding and marketing the City. Work with City staff. Matter is presently pending.