HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2008/11/08CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
MEETING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: /I- 10 -oz
PRINT NAME PRINT FULL ADDRESS RESIGNATUtov
M J16 W l'L2 J
L/
kr=
ssell W o rrev. 8044 C Wo 0
Z- e.. 3 2 L t 14 e ico I. v ^
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, November 10, 2008
7:00 p.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. Resolution 7351, Canvassing the November 4, 2008 City Election.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Meeting to Discuss Parking Issues at Hillview Park.
B. Resolution 7352, Considering Appeals for the Stormwater Infiltration Program
on the 2009-2010 Street and utility Improvement Program.
C. Resolution 7353, Ordering the Public Improvement Project for Lake Court
Drive and Lake Court Circle.
D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 804, an Ordinance Amending
Title 1300, Flood Control Regulations, by Adding a New Chapter 1303 Entitled
Construction Site and Land Disturbance Runoff Controls (ROLL CALL VOTE)
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 7350, Awarding a Contract for Required City Fire Services.
C. Resolution 7354 to Consider a Lease Amendment with Twin Cities North
Chamber of Commerce
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 8, 2008, City Council Minutes.
B. September 22, 2008, City Council Minutes.
C. November 3, 2008, Executive Session Minutes.
November 10, 2008
City Council Meeting Agenda
Page 2
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: December 1, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Next Council Meeting: November 24, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, November 10, 2008
7:00 p.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. Resolution 7351, Canvassing the November 4, 2008 City Election.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Meeting to Discuss Parking Issues at Hillview Park.
B. Resolution 7352, Considering Appeals for the Stormwater Infiltration Program
on the 2009-2010 Street and utility Improvement Program.
C. Resolution 7353, Ordering the Public Improvement Project for Lake Court
Drive and Lake Court Circle.
D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 804, an Ordinance Amending
Title 1300, Flood Control Regulations, by Adding a New Chapter 1303 Entitled
Construction Site and Land Disturbance Runoff Controls (ROLL CALL VOTE)
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 7350, Awarding a Contract for Required City Fire Services.
C. Resolution 7354 to Consider a Lease Amendment with Twin Cities North
Chamber of Commerce
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 8, 2008, City Council Minutes.
B. September 22, 2008, City Council Minutes.
C. November 3, 2008, Executive Session Minutes.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: December 1, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Next Council Meeting: November 24, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Item No. 06A
Meeting Date: November 10, 2008
Type of Business: Special
Administrator Review: ______
RESOLUTION 7351
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION CANVASSING ELECTION RESULTS OF THE
2008 GENERAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, a general election was held November 4, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the results of this election are as follows:
MAYOR (2- year term)
Joe Flaherty 3139
Barb Haake 2654
Write-In Votes 23
COUNCIL MEMBER (4-year term)
Roger Stigney 2473
Sherry Gunn 2443
Mary Kay Walsh-Kaczmarek 2177
Kenneth Glidden 2148
Write-in Votes 52
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Joe Flaherty is being certified
as being elected to a two-year term as Mayor of the City of Mounds View; and that
Roger Stigney and Sherry Gunn are being certified as being elected to four-year
terms as City Council Members of the City of Mounds View.
Adopted this 10th day of November, 2008
_______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
James Ericson, Clerk-Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 7A
Meeting Date: November 10, 2008
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
From:Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer
Item Title/Subject:Public Meeting to Discuss Parking Issues
At Hillview Park
Background:
On February 11, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7223 creating the Streets and
Utilities Committee (Streets Committee).
On June 14, 2008 the Streets 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. One issue discussed was additional parking at Hillview Park
On June 16, 2008 the Streets Committee adopted recommendations on specific design
issues, including additional parking at Hillview Park, for forwarding to the City Council.
On July 28, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution 7307 concerning the
recommendations brought forth from the Streets Committee on June 16, 2008.
On October 23, 2008 the Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission (Parks
Commission) adopted recommendations regarding additional parking at Hillview Park.
On October 27, 2008 the City Council discussed the recommendations brought forth from
the Parks Commission and concluded that the residents adjacent to the park should be
invited to the November 10, 2008 Council Meeting and given the opportunity to express
their opinion as to the need for parking improvements adjacent to Hillview Park.
Discussion:
The possibility of adding parking stalls to Hillview Park was first raised during development
of the Feasibility Report for the 2007-2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project (SUIP),
which later became the 2009-2010 SUIP. The option of constructing 15 angled parking
stalls along the north side of Hillview Road, between Long Lake Road and the existing
park building was developed and included in the Feasibility Report. A concrete sidewalk
along the north boulevard was also proposed in conjunction with the angled parking, to
provide for pedestrian movement without conflict to the parking area.
Figure 1 attached to this Staff Report shows the layout of this option.
November 10, 2008 Item No. 7A
Page 2
Based on discussions with the Streets and Utilities Committee, a second option was
developed for potential parking at Hillview Park. This second option proposed angled
parking along the north side of Hillview Road for the entire length from Long Lake Road to
Greenwood Drive. Figure 2 attached to this Staff Report shows the layout of this option.
In addition to the proposals along Hillview Road, an option was also developed for
Greenwood Drive. The option consisted of a “bump out” along the east side of Greenwood
Drive adjacent to the park. The primary purpose of this option was to reduce congestion
for the through traffic on Greenwood Drive when parked vehicles were present.
The following table summarizes the existing condition and the options that have been
considered. The table includes number of parking stalls and additional cost to the
2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project.
Street Option # of parking stalls Additional Cost
Hillview Road Existing 15 (all parallel)$0
Option 1 (“short”) 21 (15 angled + 6 parallel)$28,700
Option 2 (“long”) 27 (all angled)$60,000
Greenwood Drive Existing 11 (all parallel)$0
“Bump Out”9 (all parallel)$11,500
The Streets and Utilities Committee received public input on June 14, 2008 on the various
options. On June 16, 2008 the Committee passed a motion recommending that Option 2
(the “long” option) be selected for Hillview Road and that the “Bump Out” option be
selected for Greenwood Drive.
Council agreed with the recommendations from the Streets and Utilities Committee and
passed Resolution 7307 on July 28, 2008. A copy of Resolution 7307 has been attached
to this Staff Report. The resolution states the maximum number of angled parking stalls
shall be constructed along the north side of Hillview Road, from Long Lake Road to
Greenwood Drive, including an off-street concrete sidewalk. The resolution further states
that a “bump out” lane shall be constructed along the east side of Greenwood Drive
adjacent to Hillview Park. The resolution states the intent that the improvements would be
financed by the Park Dedication Fund, pending final financial review.
The Parks Commission has raised concerns regarding Resolution 7307. Their concerns
are regarding the proposed financing and the physical impact that the proposed angled
parking stalls and sidewalk would have on the park property.
A joint meeting between the Streets and Utilities Committee and the Parks Commission
was held on October 20, 2008 to discuss the issues. No consensus was reached.
November 10, 2008 Item No. 7A
Page 3
Subsequently, at their meeting of October 23, 2008, the Parks Commission adopted a
position statement regarding this issue. A copy of that statement is also included with this
Staff Report for reference. The position of the Commission is that no parking
improvements should be made at Hillview Park. Their further position is that if the Council
should decide to proceed with parking improvements, the Park Dedication Fund not be
used to finance the improvements.
City Administrator Ericson gave a verbal report on the status of this issue at the October
27, 2008 Council Meeting. Based on the status, including the differing positions of the
Streets Committee and Parks Commission, Council felt it would be appropriate to solicit
additional input from the residents in the area of Hillview Park. Council directed Staff to
invite residents adjacent to the park to the November 10, 2008 Council Meeting.
A notice was mailed to all residents adjacent to Hillview Park on November 29, 2008. A
copy of the notice has been attached to this Staff Report, along with the map showing the
area to which the notice was sent. The purpose of the notice was to inform the residents
of the possibility of adding angled parking stalls at Hillview Park, and to invite them to the
November 10, 2008 Council Meeting to express their opinions on the issue.
Recommendation:
Staff is seeking further direction from the City Council on this issue. It is recommended
that the Council consider the information presented in this Staff Report, along with the
input of the public attending the November 10, 2008 Council meeting, and attempt to
reach a conclusion on this issue.
If the conclusion reached is consistent with Resolution 7307, then no further action will
be needed on this issue. If the conclusion differs from Resolution 7307, the Council
should direct Staff to prepare a new Resolution to address the revised conclusion.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer
Attachments:
Figure 1 – Hillview Park Parking – Short Option
Figure 2 – Hillview Park Parking – Long Option
Resolution 7307
Parks Commission Position Statement
Meeting Notice to Residents, including distribution map
RESOLUTION 7307
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING VARIOUS PRELIMINARY DESIGN ISSUES 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, 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, on June 14, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee
held a Public Meeting to review various design issues of the 2009 – 2010 Street
and Utility Improvement Project and gather public input; 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 7, 2008 the City Council discussed the
recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Committee for various design
issues of the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1.The width of Jackson Drive from Laport Drive to Sherwood Road as
reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement
Project shall be 24-feet from face of curb to face of curb.
2.The width of Fairchild Avenue from Sherwood Road to Hillview
Road as reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility
Improvement Project shall be 24-feet from face of curb to face of
curb.
3.Red Oak Drive from Long Lake Road to Hillview Road as
reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement
Project shall include the following:
a.Width shall be 32-feet from face of curb to face of curb.
b.A parking lane shall be provided on one side only. The side
of the road is yet to be determined.
c.The parking lane shall also serve as a pedestrian/bicycle
corridor.
d.A traffic calming plan shall be developed. The final plan is
subject to the review and approval of the Streets and Utilities
Committee and the City Council.
4.Hillview Road from Long Lake Road to Red Oak Drive as
reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement
Project shall include the following:
a.Width shall be 40-feet from face of curb to face of curb.
b.Parking lanes shall be provided along both sides of the road.
c.The parking lanes shall also serve as a pedestrian/bicycle
corridor.
d.No change is made from the current condition in regard to
locations where parking is allowed and prohibited.
5.Angled parking shall be provided along the north side of Hillview
Road as reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility
Improvement Project from Long Lake Road to Greenwood Drive.
a.The angled parking will replace the parking lane in this
location.
b.The maximum number of stalls shall be constructed.
Anticipated amount is 27.
c.An off-street concrete sidewalk shall be constructed at this
location to provide the pedestrian/bicycle corridor.
d.It is the intent that this improvement shall be financed from
the Park Dedication Fund, pending final financial review
upon completion of the construction documents.
6.A “bump out” lane for parallel parking shall be constructed along
the east side of Greenwood Drive as reconstructed under the
2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project along the
frontage of Hillview Park. It is the intent that this improvement shall
be financed from the Park Dedication Fund, pending final financial
review upon completion of the construction documents.
7.The access to County Road 10 at Hillview Road / Fairchild Avenue
shall be removed as part of the 2009–2010 Street and Utility
Improvement Project. Fairchild Avenue and Hillview Road shall be
connected to form a continuous route between Sherwood Road and
Red Oak Drive.
Adopted this 28th day of July 2008.
(ATTEST)____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)____________________________________
James Ericson, City Administrator
Item No: 7B
Meeting Date: November 10, 2008
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
From:Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer
Item Title/Subject:Resolution 7352 Considering Appeals for the
Stormwater Infiltration Program on the 2009-2010 Street
and Utility Improvement Program
Background:
On October 22, 2007 the City Council adopted Resolution 7176 establishing the Street and
Utility Improvement Program.
On February 11, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution 7223 creating the Streets and
Utilities Committee.
On July 15, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee held a Public Meeting to review the
Stormwater Infiltration Program to be incorporated as part of the overall Street and Utility
Improvement Program.
On August 11, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution 7319 establishing the
components of the Stormwater Infiltration Program.
On August 25, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution 7328 establishing the appeal
parameters for the Stormwater Infiltration Program.
Discussion:
Appeal Process and Notifications
When the Stormwater Infiltration Program (SIP) was established, both the Streets and
Utilities Committee and the City Council felt that a method should be developed for
property owners to appeal the location of a specific infiltration feature proposed under the
program. Parameters for the appeal were developed, and the formal appeal process was
established by the City Council under Resolution 7328, adopted on August 25, 2008. A
copy of Resolution 7328 is included with this Staff Report for reference.
The appeal process stated, among other things, that the appeals must be submitted in
writing, must be based upon a specific condition, and must include a supporting argument.
It further stated that all submitted appeals would be considered and acted upon by the
City Council, and that the decision of the Council would be final.
November 10, 2008 Item No. 7B
Page 2
Notice of the SIP was sent on September 26, 2008 to owners of property adjacent to
proposed infiltration features on the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project.
The notice was provided to 104 properties. The notice included information on the SIP, as
well as the right to appeal the proposed infiltration feature, including the deadline for
submission of an appeal.
Staff also developed the form upon which appeals were to be submitted. However, the
appeal form was not included with the notice sent to the property owners. The appeal form
was only distributed to individual property owners upon request.
Based on a request from the Streets and Utilities Committee at their October meeting, both
the appeal form and the notice to the property owners were revised. The revised notice
was sent to the property owners on October 22, 2008. As part of the revised notice, the
deadline for submitting an appeal was extended to October 31, 2008.
Both the original and revised notice included an offer to meet on-site with individual
property owners to review the specific infiltration feature proposed adjacent to their
property, and to identify the proposed size and location of the feature to help with their
understanding. To date, 22 such on-site meetings have been held.
Appeals Received and Staff Response
As of the deadline, a total of four appeals were received. Staff has reviewed the appeals
and has prepared an individual written response to each. The Staff response includes a
recommendation to either uphold or deny the appeal. Copies of both the appeal forms and
the Staff responses are included with this Staff Report. Site plans of each property in
question along with a photograph of the area where the proposed infiltration feature would
be located are also included with this Staff Report for additional reference.
A list of the appeals received and the Staff recommendation on each is given below:
Address_____________Staff Recommendation
x 2600 Sherwood Road Denial
x 2748 Sherwood Road Denial
x 2756 Sherwood Road Denial
x 7866 Eastwood Road Denial
The Staff recommendation is to deny all appeals that were received. While this may
initially seem strict, it must be kept in mind that development of the SIP was driven by
need, not desire. The City must incorporate the infiltration features to meet the
requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) so that it can proceed with
each Street and Utility Improvement project.
November 10, 2008 Item No. 7B
Page 3
Due to the size of the SIP that had to be developed to meet the RCWD requirements, the
philosophical approach taken was that the City would identify and utilize those locations
where the construction of an infiltration feature would be cost effective and would provide
the most overall benefit to the project and the community while minimizing negative impact
to the adjacent property. Any successful appeal to the SIP would require a real hardship.
Applying this philosophical approach to the appeals received, Staff did not feel that any
met the necessary criteria to be upheld.
Other Reference Materials
Numerous additional background documents related to this issue and the development of
the SIP have been prepared, and have been included in previous meeting packets of both
the City Council and the Streets and Utilities Committee. In the interest of length, only the
most pertinent documents have been included with this Staff Report. Please refer to those
other documents if additional background information is desired.
Council Review and Action
The Streets and Utilities Committee has specifically recommended that each appeal be
reviewed individually. Staff concurs with this recommendation. Each property owner who
has submitted an appeal has been provided with a copy of the Staff response. They have
also been notified of the Council discussion to be held on November 10, 2008 so they may
be present if they would like to be.
Once Council has reached a conclusion on each appeal, it is recommended that the
decision be recorded via resolution. It is the opinion of Staff that a single resolution can be
adopted for all appeals, with each property address listed individually within the resolution.
Recommendation:
Resolution 7352 has been prepared based on the above discussion and the Staff
recommendation for each appeal. The Resolution is attached to this Staff Report for
consideration by the City Council.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 7352, rendering the decisions on
the appeals submitted for the Stormwater Infiltration Program in the 2009-2010 Street and
Utility Improvement Project.
November 10, 2008 Item No. 7B
Page 4
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer
Attachments:
x Resolution 7352
x Resolution 7328 – Establishing the Appeal Parameters for the SIP
x Appeal form, Staff response, site plan, and photograph for each address:
- 2600 Sherwood Road
- 2748 Sherwood Road
- 2756 Sherwood Road
- 7866 Eastwood Road
Resolution 7352
Page 1
RESOLUTION 7352
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CONSIDERING APPEALS RECEIVED FOR THE APPLICATION OF
THE STORMWATER INFILTRATION PROGRAM (SIP)
ON THE 2009-2010 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7176 approved by the City
Council on Oct. 22, 2007, the Street and Utility Improvement Program (Program)
was adopted in accordance with the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities
Task Force; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7319 approved by the City
Council on August 11, 2008 the components of the Stormwater Infiltration
Program (SIP) to be used in association with the Program were established; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7328 approved by the City
Council on August 25, 2008 the appeal process for the SIP was established; and
WHEREAS, notice has been provided to those property owners
directly impacted by the application of the SIP to the 2009-2010 Street and Utility
Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the property owners have been given a reasonable
opportunity to submit a written appeal to the SIP in accordance with the approved
appeal process; and
WHEREAS, the deadline for submittal of appeals for the SIP on the
2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project has passed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the appeals submitted
for the SIP on the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the property owners submitting appeals have been
given the opportunity to participate in the consideration of their appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
The decisions rendered on the appeals submitted for the application
of the Stormwater Infiltration Program as part of the 2009-2010 Street and
Utility Improvement Project are:
Resolution 7352
Page 2
Appeals Denied
2600 Sherwood Road
2748 Sherwood Road
2756 Sherwood Road
7866 Eastwood Road
Appeals Upheld
None.
Adopted this 10th day of November 2008.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(ATTEST)
____________________________________
James Ericson, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Resolution 7328
Page 1
RESOLUTION 7328
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ESTABLISHING THE APPEAL PARAMETERS FOR THE STORMWATER
INFILTRATION PROGRAM (SIP)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7176 approved by the City
Council on Oct. 22, 2007, the Street and Utility Improvement Program (Program)
was adopted in accordance with the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities
Task Force; 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, on July 21, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee
adopted a motion recommending that the installation of the SIP features be
mandatory in all designated locations and that a SIP appeal process be
developed; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2008 the City Council discussed the
recommendation of the Streets and Utilities Committee to develop a SIP appeal
process and requested that the Streets and Utilities Committee define a list of
reasonable appeal parameters; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2008 the Streets and Utilities
Committee adopted a motion recommending the list of SIP appeal parameters be
presented to the City Council for consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1.The owner of a property adjacent to the location of a proposed
infiltration feature designated by the City as part of the design
process for a project under the Street and Utility Improvement
Program shall have the right to appeal the designation of that
feature adjacent to their property.
2.The appeal must be submitted in writing and must follow the
procedure established by the City.
Resolution 7328
Page 2
3.The appeal must be submitted by the specified deadline. The City
will establish the deadline for each individual project within the
Program as part of the project development. Advance written
notification of the deadline will be provided by the City to affected
properties.
4.Appeals must be based on a specific condition or conditions under
one of the following categories:
A.Physical Parameters: Acceptable conditions upon which a
physical parameter can be claimed include:
A1. Contaminated Soils – infiltration swales will not be
installed where known or suspected contaminated
soils exist.
A2. High Groundwater Elevation – infiltration swales will
not be installed where the separation between the
bottom of swale and the groundwater table is less
than the minimum distance required by Rice Creek
Watershed District.
A3. Impermeable Soils – infiltration swales will not be
installed where in place soils do not exhibit
permeability rates high enough to promote infiltration.
A4. Potential Stormwater Hot Spot Land Uses – infiltration
swales will be used with caution (per the guidance in
the Minnesota Stormwater Manual) in locations where
runoff is generated from land uses such as
commercial, industrial, institutional, municipal, or
transportation-related operations that produce higher
levels of stormwater pollutants, and/or present a
higher potential risk for spills, leaks, or illicit
discharges.
A5. Relative Elevation – infiltration swales must be
located downstream of impervious areas to provide
the intended benefit. An infiltration swale will not be
located where an insufficient volume of stormwater
will reach it.
A6. Significant Trees – infiltration swales will not be
located where they would have a direct negative
impact upon existing significant trees.
Resolution 7328
Page 3
A7. Spacing – infiltration swales will be efficiently spaced
throughout the project area and not lumped in one
location, leaving other suitable areas without
treatment.
A8. Steep Slopes – infiltration swales will not be installed
in locations where they cause excessive slopes.
A9. Underground Utilities – infiltration swales will not be
installed where conflict with existing underground
utilities result in the swale being cost prohibitive.
A10. Wellhead Protection – infiltration swales proposed in
vulnerable wellhead protection areas will follow
guidance provided by the Minnesota Department of
Health.
A11. Other Physical Parameters – infiltration swales will
not be installed where any other physical parameter
would preclude their construction or function.
B.Hardship Parameters: Acceptable conditions upon which a
hardship parameter can be claimed include:
B1. Safety – an infiltration swale at a specific location
raises safety concerns for the adjacent property
owner or other persons associated with the property.
B2. Maintenance – an infiltration swale at a specific
location raises maintenance concerns for the adjacent
property owner due to their physical condition.
B3. Minimum Setback – an infiltration swale at a specific
location encroaches within the required setback to a
given structure as defined in the City Code.
B4. Other Hardship – Any other hardship identified by the
adjacent property owner.
5.Appeal submittals must identify upon what condition or conditions
the appeal is based.
6.The appeal submittal shall provide a written argument to
substantiate the claim of condition, including supporting
documentation or evidence as necessary.
Resolution 7328
Page 4
7.The appeal shall be considered and decided upon by the City
Council at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Notice of
the Council meeting at which the appeal will be heard shall be
provided in advance to the property owner who submitted the
appeal.
8.Appeals may be withdrawn at any time up to when action is taken
upon it by the City Council.
9.The decision of the City Council regarding the appeal shall be final.
10. If an appeal is upheld by the City Council, the associated infiltration
feature will be deleted from the corresponding project.
Adopted this 25th day of August 2008.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(ATTEST)
____________________________________
James Ericson, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Stormwater Infiltration Program
Staff Response to Appeal
2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project
Property Address:2600 Sherwood Road
Basis for Appeal:Multiple – Maintenance, Physical
Date of Appeal:October 29, 2008
Date of Appeal Hearing:November 10, 2008
Staff Recommendation:Denial
Basis for Staff Recommendation:
The property owner has not presented any objective supporting information for
their appeal. The argument presented by the property owner is based on personal
opinion, supposition, emotion, and a general opposition to the SIP. The standard
for upholding the appeal has not been met.
Discussion:
The property owner states eight numbered points in their written argument on the
appeal form. A response to each is stated below:
1.The property owner is stating their personal opposition to the SIP, their
opinion that this is unfair, and that they receive no benefit. The City must
incorporate water quality and volume controls as part of the project in order to
meet the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. The locations
have been selected based on drainage characteristics and existing physical
obstacles. The locations provide the maximum and most effective benefit to
the overall City stormwater management system as a whole, while minimizing
impacts to the existing properties. Unfortunately, the goal of the SIP is not to
provide direct benefit to individual properties.
2.The property owner contracts their yard maintenance, therefore there is no
hardship due to their age or physical abilities. The infiltration feature will be
readily maintainable by the contract service. The maximum drawdown time
for the feature is 48-hours. Therefore, while there may be a short period of
time immediately following a rain event where water is standing in the swale,
it should be reasonable for the maintenance service to plan their work
accordingly and continue regular maintenance.
3.The property owner states their supposition regarding groundwater flow.
There is no evidence to support a claim that the infiltration feature will result
in water seepage into the basement of the home. The feature will be designed
to accept only a limited amount of water volume. If during a rainfall event the
design capacity of the feature is exceeded, the excess water will flow back
into the gutter of the street and will be collected by the storm sewer. Also, the
elevation of the feature will be designed in accordance with accepted design
principles in relation to the groundwater elevation.
4.The infiltration feature will be designed and constructed to accommodate the
existing power pole. City Staff has met on site with the City Forester to
review the pine tree. It has been confirmed that the feature can be designed
and constructed to avoid impact to the tree.
5.Property owner states their opinion regarding potential for collecting trash and
leaves. This is not an acceptable basis for an appeal of the SIP.
6.The design and construction of the features on the project will be coordinated
with the private utilities such as natural gas, telephone, and cable television.
7.The existing infiltration feature along County Road H2 was only referenced as
an example. It is not possible to locate a sufficient number of side yard
features only in the 2009-2010 SUIP and meet the requirements. Again, the
locations have been selected not in terms of individual “fairness”, but based
on where maximum overall benefit for the project & City can be obtained
with minimal negative impact to the existing property.
That being said, during the on-site meeting the Forester indicated that the
proposed feature could also be constructed along the side yard with no
negative impact to the existing trees. Staff will investigate the possibility of
locating the feature along the side yard, if that would be more acceptable to
the resident.
8.The property owner states their personal opinion that they do not want an
infiltration feature adjacent to their property. This is not suitable basis for the
appeal process of the SIP.
2616 2600
Sherwood Road
Greenwood DriveTOP OF SLOPE
BOTTOM OF SLOPE
DATE:COMM:43507129-SIP APPEALS_1_1_9619.SV$.DWG
2600 SHERWOOD ROAD - SIP FEATURE LOCATION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
2009-2010 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
11/6/08 435-07129-0
1FIGURE
2600 Sherwood
Stormwater Infiltration Program
Staff Response to Appeal
2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project
Property Address:2748 Sherwood Road
Basis for Appeal:Other
Date of Appeal:October 29, 2008
Date of Appeal Hearing:November 10, 2008
Staff Recommendation:Denial
Basis for Staff Recommendation:
The property owner has not presented any objective supporting information for
their appeal. They have only stated reservations regarding the long-term impacts
of the infiltration features, and their personal desire to not have one adjacent to
their property. The standard for upholding the appeal has not been met.
2756 2748 2740
Sherwood Road
Fairchild AvenueTOP OF SLOPE
BOTTOM OF SLOPE
DATE:COMM:43507129-SIP APPEALS_1_1_9619.SV$.DWG
2748 SHERWOOD ROAD - SIP FEATURE LOCATION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
2009-2010 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
11/6/08 435-07129-0
1FIGURE
2748 Sherwood
Stormwater Infiltration Program
Staff Response to Appeal
2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project
Property Address:2756 Sherwood Road
Basis for Appeal:Other
Date of Appeal:October 29, 2008
Date of Appeal Hearing:November 10, 2008
Staff Recommendation:Denial
Basis for Staff Recommendation:
The property owner has not presented any objective supporting information for
their appeal. They have only stated personal reservations regarding the long-term
impacts of the infiltration features, and their desire to not have one adjacent to
their property.
The property owner states their supposition regarding groundwater flow. There is
no evidence to support a claim that the infiltration feature will result in water
seepage into the basement of the home. The feature will be designed to accept
only a limited amount of water volume. If during a rainfall event the design
capacity of the feature is exceeded, the excess water will flow back into the gutter
of the street and will be collected by the storm sewer
Based on the above discussion, it is the conclusion of Staff that the standard for
upholding the appeal has not been met.
2756 2748
Sherwood Road
Fairchild AvenueTOP OF SLOPE
BOTTOM OF SLOPE
DATE:COMM:43507129-SIP APPEALS.DWG
2756 SHERWOOD ROAD - SIP FEATURE LOCATION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
2009-2010 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
11/6/08 435-07129-0
1FIGURE
2756 Sherwood
Stormwater Infiltration Program
Staff Response to Appeal
2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project
Property Address:7866 Eastwood Road
Basis for Appeal:Maintenance
Date of Appeal:October 27, 2008
Date of Appeal Hearing:November 10, 2008
Staff Recommendation:Denial
Basis for Staff Recommendation:
The property owner has stated their concern that due to limited physical abilities,
they may not be able to properly maintain the infiltration feature. The feature will
be designed to require similar maintenance to an ordinary turf yard. The feature
will not be uneven ground, but will include slopes that are readily maintainable
with a lawn mower. Since the property owner is able to keep the existing yard
maintained, it is anticipated that they will be able to continue to keep the yard
maintained with the infiltration feature in place.
The property owner has requested that the feature be moved to the next lot to the
north (7880 Eastwood Road). Construction of an infiltration feature at 7880
Eastwood Road would result in the removal of a number of large existing oak
trees. Therefore the 7880 Eastwood Road is a less desirable location for a feature
than 7866 Eastwood Road. The existing topography of the area also indicates that
7866 Eastwood is the preferable site for the feature.
Based on the above discussion, it is the conclusion of Staff that the standard for
upholding the appeal has not been met.
2648
7866
7880
Eastwood RoadTOP OF SLOPE
BOTTOM OF SLOPE
DATE:COMM:43507129-SIP APPEALS_1_1_9619.SV$.DWG
7866 EASTWOOD ROAD - SIP FEATURE LOCATION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
2009-2010 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
11/6/08 435-07129-0
1FIGURE
7866 Eastwood
Item No: 7C
Meeting Date: November 10, 2008
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
From:Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer
Item Title/Subject:Resolution 7353 Ordering the Public Improvement
Project for Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle
Background:
Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle have existed as streets within the Silver Lake
Woods development, privately owned and maintained by the Silver Lake Woods
Condominium Association.
Several years ago, the Silver Lake Woods Condominium Association approached the City
about the possibility of transferring ownership of Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle to
the City of Mounds View.
On January 26, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution 6166 approving the Feasibility
Report for the 2003 Street Improvement Project, which included investigating the
improvement of Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle to City standards.
Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle were ultimately not included in the construction
project for the 2003 Street Improvement Project. However, the City and the Silver Lake
Woods Condominium Association continued the dialogue regarding transferring ownership
of the streets to the City.
On October 27, 2008 the City of Mounds View and the Silver Lake Woods Condominium
Association entered into a Street Transfer Agreement that defined the process for transfer
of ownership of Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle to the City.
Discussion:
The Silver Lake Woods Condominium Association approached the City of Mounds View
several years ago regarding the possibility of transferring ownership of Lake Court Drive
and Lake Court Circle to the City. The City indicated that it would consider accepting the
streets, provided that they were improved to City standards by the Association prior to the
transfer, and that an appropriate Agreement was entered into by the two parties.
November 10, 2008 Item No. 7C
Page 2
Based on the timing of the initial discussion, the possibility was identified to include the
improvements of Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle in the development of the 2003
Street Improvement Project, which was under development by the City. Therefore, an
investigation of the improvements necessary to bring the streets up to City standard was
included in the Feasibility Report for the 2003 Street Improvement Project.
The Feasibility Report was completed and approved, and the 2003 Street Improvement
Project was subsequently ordered. The detailed construction plans and specifications
were completed, including Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle. However, the
negotiations for the agreement between the City and the Association stalled. As a result,
the improvements for Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle were deleted from the 2003
Street Improvement Project by an Addendum prior to receiving bids on the project.
The negotiations on the transfer of Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle have since
resumed, and recently were completed. The Street Transfer Agreement has been entered
into by both parties to facilitate the transfer. A condition of the Agreement states that upon
its execution, the City will initiate the process to perform the public improvements on the
streets. The purpose of this Staff Report is to provide the information and identify the
necessary activities to proceed.
Summary of 2003 Feasibility Report
Following is a summary of the scope of the improvements identified for Lake Court Drive
and Lake Court Circle in the Feasibility Report on the 2003 Street Improvement Project.
The scope has not changed significantly since the 2003 Report was completed.
Existing Conditions
The streets were constructed in 1981 as part of City Project No. 81-3. They
contain existing surmountable concrete curb and gutter, and are 38-feet wide
from back of curb to back of curb. The width of the bituminous surfacing is
33-feet. The existing structural section of the streets is a 3-inch thick layer of
gravel base, overlain with 4-inches of bituminous surfacing.
The bituminous surfacing of the streets is showing distress, and there are
isolated segments of damaged and settled curb throughout the area, particularly
near the location of storm sewer catch basin structures . In addition, center
islands were included in the original construction of Lake Court Drive at both
locations where it intersected Mounds View Drive. These islands have since
been removed, resulting in patches to the bituminous surfacing.
November 10, 2008 Item No. 7C
Page 3
Proposed Improvements
It is proposed that the existing concrete curb and gutter be left in place to the
maximum extent possible. It is only proposed to replace only those existing
individual sections of curb that are damaged.
The structural section of the street between the existing curbs is proposed to be
rehabilitated through a process of reclamation and overlay. The new street
section that would be constructed would be identical to the City standard
adopted under Resolution 7176 for the Street and Utility Improvement Program.
The existing street pavement would be ground up and mixed with the gravel and
sand beneath it, creating a new recycled gravel base. This recycled base would
be temporarily removed from the street, so the subgrade below can be shaped to
the appropriate elevation and slope for the new street section. Once the
subgrade is prepared, the recycled gravel would be placed back into the street
bed. New gravel would be added as necessary to produce the total required
thickness. The gravel would be prepared, and then the new bituminous
surfacing would be paved on the streets.
A small amount of improvements would also be performed to the existing storm
sewer at the low point of Lake Court Drive.
Permits
A permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District would be required for the improvements
to Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle. The improvements for these streets were
included on the completed plans and specifications submitted to the RCWD as part of the
permit application for the 2003 Street Improvement Project. The findings of the permit
application for the 2003 Street Improvement Project were that no additional stormwater
improvements (such as infiltration swales) were required along Lake Court Drive or Lake
Court Circle.
We have made initial contact with RCWD regarding the current proposal to perform the
improvements to Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle. We have supplied them with the
original information from the 2003 Street Improvement Project, and have requested an
opinion whether their findings from that project can be re-applied to the current proposal.
We are hopeful that RCWD will concur that the findings from the 2003 Project permit
application are still appropriate, but as of the time this Staff Report was prepared we had
not received an official response.
All requirements of the new RCWD permit would need to be included in the public
improvement project for the streets.
November 10, 2008 Item No. 7C
Page 4
Cost Estimate
A cost estimate for the improvements to Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle was
included in Exhibit B of the Street Transfer Agreement. The cost estimate was developed
by inflating the cost estimate from the 2003 Street Improvement Project to current prices.
In addition to construction costs, the estimated total includes the standard allowance for
project development costs including legal, administrative, and engineering. The estimated
total of the legal fees incurred to date on the development of the Agreement were also
included in the project cost estimate. Finally, an additional 25% contingency was applied
to the project cost for conservatism, since Exhibit B notes that the estimated project cost is
a “not to exceed” amount.
The total estimated project cost included in Exhibit B of the Agreement is $415,000.
The actual cost of the project will need to be determined based on the bids received for the
construction contract, as well as the associated project development costs.
It should be noted that based on the 2003 RCWD permit, no costs for any stormwater
improvements have been included in the current project estimate. If RCWD does require
stormwater improvements as part of the new permit for this work, the costs for those
improvements will need to be determined and be included in the costs for the project.
Financing
The costs for the improvements to Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle are to be
financed completely by the Silver Lake Woods Condominium Association. The
Agreement between the Association and the City allows the City to assess 100% of the
public improvement project, including the costs associated with developing the Agreement.
Staff, legal, and engineering costs are all recoverable under the Agreement.
Terms of the assessment are described in Exhibit B of the Street Transfer Agreement. A
copy of Exhibit B is included with this Staff Report for reference. The Association has
requested that the assessment be assigned for collection with its property taxes for a
period of up to 10 years. It has agreed to pay interest on the payment period of the
assessment.
Through the Agreement, the Association has waived the requirement of a public hearing
for the proposed assessment. However, the City Council will still need to adopt a
resolution to identify the amount to be assessed and to assign the assessment to the
Association. The City Council will have the ability to set both the interest rate and
repayment schedule for the assessment as part of that resolution. It is noted that the
current annual interest rate being assigned by the City for assessments is 5.5%.
November 10, 2008 Item No. 7C
Page 5
The amount to be assessed cannot be determined until the bids for a construction contract
have been received. The assessment would be certified to the County as soon as
possible following approval of the resolution. The interest on the assessment would begin
accumulating upon certification. Anticipating that the assessment is certified to the County
in March 2009, approximately 9 months of interest would accumulate on the assessment
for calendar year 2009. The first payment on the assessment would be received with the
property taxes for calendar year 2010.
Next Steps
Based on the history of this issue and the Agreement that is currently in place, it is not
necessary to update the Feasibility Report for the improvements to Lake Court Drive and
Lake Court Circle. The appropriate next step in the public improvement process would be
to order the project and authorize the preparation of the detailed construction documents,
which consist of the plans and specifications. The construction documents would be
brought back to the City Council for approval and authorization to proceed with bidding for
the construction contract.
It is proposed to combine the improvements for Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle
with the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project. The projects will share many of
the same specifications, resulting in a saving for project design cost. In addition, more
favorable construction bids should be received for the improvements to Lake Court Drive
and Lake Court Circle if it is combined with a larger project.
If the public improvement project for Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle is ordered at
this time, its schedule should be compatible with the 2009-2010 Street and Utility
Improvement Project. No delay is anticipated to the schedule for the 2009-2010 Project
due to the addition of Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle.
Schedule
If the public improvement project for Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle is ordered on
November 10, 2008, following is the anticipated project schedule:
Action Date
Order Project November 10, 2008
Approve Plans, Set Bid Date, & Authorize
Combining with 2009-2010 Project Dec. 8 or 22, 2008
Bids Received January 22, 2009
Adopt Assessment Resolution February 9, 2009
Award Construction Contract February 9, 2009
Begin Construction May 2009
Construction Complete Oct / Nov 2009
November 10, 2008 Item No. 7C
Page 6
Recommendation:
Resolution 7353 has been prepared based on the above discussion. The Resolution is
attached to this Staff Report for consideration by the City Council.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 7353, ordering the public
improvement project for Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle, and authorizing
preparation of the plans and specifications.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer
Attachments:
- Resolution 7353
- Exhibit B – Petition and Waiver Agreement, from the Street Transfer Agreement
RESOLUTION 7353
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDERING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FOR LAKE COURT DRIVE AND LAKE COURT CIRCLE
WHEREAS, Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle exist as
streets within the Silver Lake Woods development; and
WHEREAS, Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle are currently
privately owned and maintained by the Silver Lake Woods Condominium
Association (Association); and
WHEREAS, the Association desires to transfer ownership of Lake
Court Drive and Lake Court Circle to the City of Mounds View (City); and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2008 the City and the Association
entered into a Street Transfer Agreement including Exhibits A and B (Agreement)
for Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement the City will initiate the
public improvement process for Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously investigated the feasibility of
the public improvements for Lake Court Drive and Lake Court Circle; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 6166 adopted by the City
Council on January 26, 2004 the feasibility study for Lake Court Drive and Lake
Court Circle was approved; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement the Association agrees to
pay 100% of the cost of the public improvements for Lake Court Drive and Lake
Court Circle and waives its right to a public hearing on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1.The project to perform the public improvements for Lake
Court Drive and Lake Court Circle is hereby ordered.
2.Preparation of the construction plans and specifications for
the public improvements is hereby authorized.
3.Bonestroo Inc. is selected as the consulting engineering firm
for the public improvement project.
Resolution 7353
Page 2
Adopted this 10th day of November 2008.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(ATTEST)
____________________________________
James Ericson, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 7D
Meeting Date: November 10, 2008
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Halverson, Consulting Engineer
James Ericson, Clerk - Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 804,
Construction Site and Land Disturbance Runoff
Control Ordinance (Chapter 1303)
Background:
Since March 10, 2003, the City has been required to comply with the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) General Permit. This permit requires the City to develop an ordinance to
control construction site runoff from land disturbing activities greater than or
equal to one acre.
On September 25, 2006 the City Council adopted Resolution 6937 authorizing
Bonestroo to prepare the ordinance for the City.
On October 6, 2008 the City Council reviewed a draft version of the ordinance
and land disturbance requirements as an agenda item of their Work Session.
On October 27, 2008, the City Council introduced the ordinance and approved its
first reading, with a few minor suggested revisions.
Discussion:
Bonestroo staff prepared an initial draft of the ordinance as directed, and then
worked with City Staff from the Public Works and Community Development
departments through several iterations of revisions and comments until the
ordinance reached its current proposed version. The proposed ordinance, titled
“Construction Site and Land Disturbance Runoff Control Ordinance”, is provided
as an attachment to this Staff Report.
City Staff feels the proposed ordinance meets the minimum requirements of the
MS4 permit and MPCA guidance. Staff also feels the ordinance provides
adequate flexibility for implementation and the appropriate enforcement
mechanism to control runoff to City water resources.
Ordinance 804 Report
Nov 10, 2008
Page 2
The ordinance is structured into the following sections.
• Findings of Fact
• Purpose
• Definitions
• General Conformance
• Conformance with Other Laws
• Land Disturbance Permit
• Submittal Requirements
• Permit Review and Approval Process
• Enforcement Actions
• Penalties
The proposed ordinance requires anyone causing one or more acres of land
disturbing activity to submit a Land Disturbance Permit application, financial
security, and Land Disturbance Plan to the City for review and approval.
The minimum standards for submittal are outlined in the proposed ordinance and
also in a separate proposed policy document titled “City of Mounds View Land
Disturbance and Implementation Requirements Plan”. Requirements within the
policy document are consistent with existing MPCA requirements and do not
provide additional restrictions on construction projects which are not already
required under the MPCA permitting process. The proposed policy document is
also included with this Staff Report.
The intent would be that as time goes on and permit requirements are modified,
the policy document can be updated without the need to revise and update the
ordinance. Policy updates could be done administratively for minor issues, or
through formal Council action for more significant modifications.
Review of Land Disturbance Permit submittal material will be conducted
administratively. However, provisions in the ordinance allow review and approval
by City Council for subdivisions or projects over 5 acres in size. City Staff
assumes most submittals will be handled administratively.
The MPCA requires the City to adopt appropriate enforcement procedures and
penalties for noncompliance. The proposed ordinance outlines the inspection and
enforcement procedures to be conducted by the City inspector and lists penalties
for noncompliance available to the City to bring the site into compliance.
Penalties range from fines for minor violations to revocation of the permit or the
ability for the City to obtain the funds from the security and administer completion
of the work for major violations.
Ordinance 804 Report
Nov 10, 2008
Page 3
October 6, 2008 City Council Work Session
During the Work Session discussion the City Council raised several comments
on the proposed ordinance and associated documents. The following list
summarizes the revisions that have been made to address Council comments:
1. 1303.07 Subd. 3: City inspection required prior to releasing any portion of
the financial security.
2. 1303.08 Subd. 1: The criteria for allowing Council review of the land
disturbance permit has been reduced from 5 acres to 3 acres.
3. 1303.09 Subd. 2&3: Consistent use of the term “time period” throughout.
4. The Land Disturbance and Implementation Plan Requirements document
has been updated to reflect the new MPCA Construction Stormwater
Permit and new Rice Creek Watershed District Rules
It is also noted that questions were raised during the Work Session discussion
regarding the expiration language contained in Section 1303.06 Subd. 3 of the
ordinance. However, it is the understanding of Staff that the questions were
resolved during the discussion and no revision to the ordinance language was
necessary.
October 27, 2008 Council Meeting
During the meeting, the City Council made additional comments on the proposed
ordinance and associated documents. The following list summarizes the
revisions that have been made to Ordinance 804 to address Council comments:
1. Question about the start time and end date of the work, how long might
we have to look at mounds of dirt if there is no action. The application and
ordinance has been modified to include approximate start dates and
anticipated end dates. While the ordinance does allow for inaction up to
180 days, if conditions are in violation of the regulations, the City can take
immediate action to request correction.
2. 1303.07, Subd 3b6: The Council observed that NPDES is noted in this
paragraph but is not defined until the next page. This was revised.
3. 1303.08, Subd 1. The Council indicated it wanted the permissive review
removed and replaced with mandatory review by Council. While this has
been revised as directed, I'm not sure the Council truly desires to review
and approve technical grading, drainage, stormwater management and
erosion control site plans.
As a result of our internal review of Section 1303.08, a number of revisions were
made to clarify when and by whom such plans are required and reviewed. The
word “subdivision” was replaced with “project” and “city” was clarified to mean
either the Council or Staff.
Ordinance 804 Report
Nov 10, 2008
Page 4
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending the City Council approve the second reading and adoption
of Ordinance 804, an ordinance creating Chapter 1303 of the City Charter
relating to construction site and land disturbance runoff control. Consistent with
State Law, the ordinance would go into effect 30 days after publication, which is
scheduled for November 19, 2008. Staff further asks for City Council consent to
publish the attached summary of Ordinance 804 as permitted by City Charter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Halverson, Consulting Engineer James Ericson, Clerk Administrator
Attachments:
• Construction Site and Land Disturbance Runoff Control Ordinance 804
ORDINANCE NO. 804
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1300, FLOOD CONTROL
REGULATIONS, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 1303 ENTITLED
CONSTRUCTION SITE AND LAND DISTURBANCE RUNOFF CONTROLS
The City of Mounds View ordains:
SECTION 1. Title 1300, “Flood Control Regulations” of the Mounds View Municipal
Code is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter 1303, “Construction Site and
Land Disturbance Runoff Controls” as follows:
CHAPTER 1303
CONSTRUCTION SITE AND LAND DISTURBANCE RUNOFF CONTROL
SECTION:
1303.01: Findings of Fact
1303.02: Purpose
1303.03: Definitions
1303.04: General Conformance
1303.05: Conflict with other laws
1303.06: Land Disturbance Permit
1303.07: Submittal Requirements
1303.08: Permit Review and Approval Process
1303.09: Enforcement Process
1303.10: Penalties
1303.01: Findings of Fact: The City of Mounds View hereby finds that
uncontrolled land disturbance activities are subject to SOIL EROSION and other
pollutants which enter into receiving water bodies adversely affecting the public
health, safety and general welfare by impacting water quality, creating nuisances,
impairing other beneficial uses of environmental resources and hindering the
ability of the City of Mounds View to provide adequate water, sewage, flood
control and other community services.
Ordinance 804
Page 2
1303.02: Purpose: The purpose of the Chapter is to promote, preserve and
enhance the natural resources within the City of Mounds View and protect them
from adverse effects occasioned by poorly sited development or incompatible
activities by regulating land disturbance activities that would have an adverse
and potentially irreversible impact on water quality and environmentally sensitive
land; by minimizing conflicts and encouraging proper installation and
maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) for land disturbance
activities; and by requiring detailed review standards and procedures for land
disturbance activities proposed for such areas.
1303.03: Definitions: For the purposes of this Chapter the definitions listed
hereunder shall be construed as specified in this section.
Subd. 1. APPLICANT: Any person or group that applies for a permit to allow
land disturbance activities. Applicant also means that person's agents,
employees, and others acting under this person's or group’s direction. The
term “applicant” also refers to the permit holder or holders and the permit
holder’s agents, employees, and others acting under this person's or
group’s direction.
Subd. 2. APPROVAL: Shall mean the proposed work or completed work
conform to this Chapter in the opinion of the City.
Subd. 3. CITY: Is the administrative staff, or its agent, of the City of Mounds
View.
Subd. 4. COMMON PLAN of DEVELOPMENT or SALE: A contiguous area
where multiple separate and distinct land disturbance activities may be
taking place at different times, or on different schedules, but under one
proposed plan including but not limited to mass site grading, utility
installation, street construction and home or building construction. This
item is broadly defined to include design, permit application,
advertisement or physical demarcation indicating that land disturbance
activities may occur.
Subd. 5. EARTHEN MATERIAL: Any rock, natural soil or fill and/or any
combination thereof.
Subd. 6. EROSION: The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the
movement of wind, water and/or ice.
Subd. 7. EROSION CONTROL: Methods employed to prevent erosion.
Examples include soil stabilization practices, horizontal slope grading,
temporary or permanent cover, and construction phasing.
Subd. 8. EXCAVATION: The mechanical removal of earthen material.
Subd. 9. FILL: A deposit of earthen material occurring via human activity.
Ordinance 804
Page 3
Subd. 10. FINAL STABILIZATION: All soil disturbance activities on the site or
common plan of development or sale have been completed, and that a
uniform (evenly distributed, e.g., without large bare areas) perennial
vegetative cover with a density of at least seventy (70) percent of the
cover for unpaved areas and areas not covered by permanent structures
has been established, or equivalent permanent stabilization measures
have been employed, and that all temporary erosion control devises are
removed, including silt fence, temporary sedimentation basins, and
temporary standpipes. Simply sowing grass seed and/or mulch is not
considered final stabilization. final stabilization of a common plan of
development or sale includes completion of building or home construction
along with final restoration of all yards and adjacent drainage ways.
Subd. 11. GRADE: The vertical location of the ground surface.
Subd. 12. GRADING: Any excavating or filling or combination thereof.
Subd. 13. LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITY: Any land change that may result
in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediment into or
upon waters or lands within the City’s jurisdiction, including construction,
clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land.
Subd. 14. LAND DISTURBANCE PLAN: A joint storm water and erosion and
sediment control plan that is a document containing the requirements of
this Chapter and the City of Mounds View land disturbance plan and
Implementation Requirements, that when implemented will decrease soil
erosion on a parcel of land and off-site nonpoint pollution. It involves both
temporary and permanent controls.
Subd. 15. PERMANENT CONTROLS: erosion and/or sediment control
measures installed that are not intended to be removed from the project
site. Examples of such protection are swales, ponds, sediment basins, turf
reinforcement mats, storm sewer systems, and riprap.
Subd. 16. PERMANENT COVER: Examples include grass, gravel, asphalt, and
concrete. See also the definition of final stabilization.
Subd. 17. PERMIT: A written warrant or license granted for land disturbance
activities.
Subd. 18. SEDIMENT: The product of an erosion process; solid material both
mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported, or has
been moved by water, wind, or ice, and has come to rest either above or
below water level.
Subd. 19. SEDIMENTATION: The process or action of depositing sediment.
Ordinance 804
Page 4
Subd. 20. SEDIMENT CONTROL: The methods employed to prevent sediment
from leaving a site. Examples of sediment control practices are silt fences,
sediment traps, earth dikes, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface
drains, storm drain inlet protection, and temporary or permanent
sedimentation basins.
Subd. 21. SITE: Any lot or parcel of land or contiguous combination thereof,
under the same ownership, where a land disturbance activity is performed
or permitted.
Subd. 22. SLOPE: An inclined ground surface the inclination of which is
expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance.
Subd. 23. SOIL: Naturally occurring superficial deposits overlying bedrock.
Subd. 24. STORM WATER: Precipitation runoff, storm water runoff, snow melt
runoff, and any other surface runoff and drainage, as defined under
Minnesota Rule 7077.0105, subpart 41b.
Subd. 25. WETLANDS: As defined in Minnesota Rules 7050.0130, subpart F,
are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated SOIL conditions. wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Constructed wetlands
designed for wastewater treatment are not waters of the state.
1303.04: General Conformance: The owner of a SITE or manager of a
common plan of development or sale shall be responsible for maintaining any
land disturbance activity in such a way as not to create a hazard to life and limb;
or endanger the environment; or adversely affect the safety, use or stability of a
property, public way or drainage channel; or deposit sediment on or into adjacent
properties, right-of-ways, drainage systems or wetlands until final stabilization
has been achieved.
Whenever the City determines that any land disturbance activity has become a
hazard to life and limb; or endangers the environment; or adversely affects the
safety, use or stability of a property, public way or drainage channel; or deposits
sediment on or into adjacent properties, right-of-ways, drainage systems or
wetlands, the owner of the property upon which the land disturbance activity is
located, or other person or agent in control of said property, upon receipt of
notice in writing from the City, shall within the period specified therein repair or
eliminate such land disturbance activity so as to eliminate the hazard and be in
conformance with the requirements of this Chapter. The City may inspect any
property for conformance with this Chapter.
Ordinance 804
Page 5
1303.05: Conflict with other laws: If the requirements of this Chapter are
in conflict with any other law, the stricter requirements shall be enforced.
1303.06: Land Disturbance Permit
Subd. 1. PERMIT APPLICABILITY: Except as exempted in Subdivision 4 of this
Section, no person shall conduct any land disturbance activity without first
obtaining a Land Disturbance permit from the City. A separate shall be
required for each site or common plan of development or sale, and may
cover both excavations and fills. Any changes or deviation from previously
reviewed plans require an amended permit be applied for and approved
before the work is performed.
Subd. 2. LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT FEES: A fee for each land disturbance
permit shall be paid to the City as established by resolution of the City
Council.
Subd. 3. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the City under the provisions of
this Chapter shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the work
authorized by such permit is not commenced within ninety (90) days from
the date of issuance of such permit, or if the work authorized by such
permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is
commenced for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days. Before such
work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so,
and the fee therefore shall be one-half the amount required for a new
permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be
made in the original plans and specifications for such work; and provided
further that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one (1)
year. In order to renew action on a permit after expiration, the permittee
shall pay a new full permit fee. Any permittee holding an unexpired permit
may apply for an extension of the time within which the permittee may
commence work under that permit when the permittee is unable to
commence work within the time required by this section for good and
satisfactory reasons. The City may extend the time for action by the
permittee for a period not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days upon
written request by the permittee showing that circumstances beyond the
control of the permittee have prevented action from being taken. No permit
shall be extended more than once.
Subd. 4. EXEMPTIONS: No person shall do any land disturbance activity
without first obtaining a land disturbance permit from the City, except that
no permit shall be required for the following activities:
a. A LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITY which meets all of the following
requirements:
Ordinance 804
Page 6
(1) Is located in an isolated, self-contained area and does not have
the potential to discharge water from the site or into natural water bodies
within the site;
(2) There is no danger apparent to private and/or public property;
(3) Does not infringe upon any wetland or ponding area or impede
any drainage course;
(4) The total area of disturbance is less than one (1) acre and is not
part of a common plan of development or sale that is equal to or greater
than one (1) acre;
(5) The total volume of disturbed, stockpiled, disposed of, or used
as fill does not exceed fifty (50) cubic yards; and
(6) Is an EXCAVATION that is less than two (2) feet in depth and
does not create a cut slope greater than five (5) feet in height, or is
steeper than two (2) horizontal to one (1) vertical or is a FILL that is less
than two (2) feet in depth and place on natural terrain with a slope flatter
than three (3) horizontal to one (1) vertical, or is less than three feet in
depth, not intended to support structures.
b. Any LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITY that disturbs less than one (1)
acre and disturbs, stockpiles, disposes of, or uses FILL more than fifty
(50) cubic yards and has received a written waiver to apply for land
disturbance activities by the CITY. Waivers will be considered on an
individual basis depending on drainage characteristics or risk of
environmental or property damage.
c. Refuse disposal SITE controlled by other regulations, laws or the City
Code.
d. EXCAVATION for wells or tunnels or utilities controlled by other
regulations, laws or the City Code.
e. Mining, quarrying, excavating, processing, stockpiling of rock, sand,
gravel, aggregate or clay where established and provided for by law or
ordinance. This shall not exempt these types of activities from the
conditional permit requirements set forth by the City Code.
f. Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forestry
crops.
g. Exploratory excavations and borings under the direction of
geotechnical engineers or engineering geologists.
h. Emergency work necessary to protect life, limb, or property.
Ordinance 804
Page 7
i. City, county, state or federal agency projects whose plans and
specifications meet the requirements of this ordinance and are reviewed
and approved by the City under a separate process.
j. A lot for which a building permit has been approved on or before the
effective date of this ordinance.
k. Any part of a subdivision if a final plat for the subdivision has been
approved by the City Council on or before the effective date of this
ordinance;
l. Installation of fence, sign, telephone, and electric poles and other kinds
of posts or poles.
Exemption from the permit requirements of this Chapter shall not be deemed to
grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the
appropriate best management practices set forth in the City of Mounds View land
disturbance plan and Implementation requirements.
1303.07: Submittal Requirements
Subd. 1. PERMIT APPLICATION: To obtain a permit, the applicant shall first file
an application on a form furnished by the City for that purpose. Every such
application shall:
a. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which
application is made.
b. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal
description, street address or similar description that will readily identify
and definitely locate the proposed building or work.
c. Indicate the purpose of the proposed work.
d. Be accompanied by plans, diagrams, computations and specifications
and other data as required in Subd. 3 of this section.
e. State the valuation of the work.
f. Create a land disturbance plan as required by Subdivision 3 of this
Section.
g. Be signed by the permittee or authorized agent.
h. Give such other data and information as may be required by the City.
i. Approximate start date and anticipated date of completion.
Ordinance 804
Page 8
Subd. 2. FINANCIAL SECURITY
a. Security required. The applicant shall provide the City with financial
security to ensure the performance of the applicant's obligations pursuant
to this Chapter. The financial security may be in the form of a bond, letter
of credit, escrow deposit or cash. The financial security must be provided
to the City upon the submittal of the permit application. The City may use
the financial security to assure that the work is completed in accordance
with the submitted plans and specifications and the provisions of this
Chapter. The financial security may also be used by the City to eliminate
any hazardous conditions associated with the work and to repair any
damage to public property or infrastructure that is caused by the work.
Applicants who are applying for land disturbance permit for projects that
consist of one lot with one single family home are exempt from the
financial security requirement of this Chapter, so long as the City
determines that there is no potential for environmental degradation.
b. Amount of security. The amount of security shall be one-hundred
twenty-five (125) percent of the estimated cost to accomplish compliance
with the approved Land Disturbance permit or two thousand dollars
($2,000.00), whichever is greater, in addition to any other security
performance required by any other regulations in this Code. The estimated
cost shall be subject to approval by the City Public Works Department.
c. Reduction of financial security. If requested by the applicant, the
amount of the financial security may be reduced by the City, subsequent
to City inspection. Said reduction will be based upon the extent to which
the grading and restoration have been completed and shall consider the
continued need for erosion control. At no time prior to final stabilization,
shall the security be reduced to less than ten (10) percent of the total
original security amount.
d. Release of security. Any remaining amount of the financial security
deposited with the City for faithful performance of the plans and
specifications and any related remedial work will be released after the
completion and inspection of all such measures and the establishment of
final stabilization, for the permitted site or common plan of development or
sale.
e. City remedy. If compliance with the approved Land Disturbance permit
is not accomplished within the allowable time period, the City may bring
the project into compliance by use of the security.
f. Exemptions. The City shall be exempt from the requirements of this
Section.
Ordinance 804
Page 9
Subd. 3. LAND DISTURBANCE PLAN: Each application for a Land Disturbance
permit shall be accompanied by copies of a land disturbance plan
consisting of the following dependent upon the type and size of land
disturbance activity conducted as described below:
a. For any individual residential lots or commercial and industrial land
disturbing less than 1 (one) acre; and fill or excavate less than 100 cubic
yards:
(1) Identification of proposed contour grading on the site at vertical
intervals of not more than two (2) feet;
(2) Drainage patterns clearly shown using arrows depicting
direction of flow;
(3) A map showing the stages or limits of grading together with the
existing or proposed finished elevations based on sea level readings;
(4) Identification of proposed building bench elevations;
(5) Submission of preliminary plans or program for water supply,
sewage disposal, drainage and flood control;
(6) soil borings, if required by the City engineer;
(7) Appropriate best management practices set forth in this Chapter
and the City of Mounds View land disturbance plan and Implementation
Requirements developed by the City; and
(8) Other information as required by the City based on specific
project characteristics.
b. For all subdivisions and commercial or industrial sites in which land
disturbance activities will impact 1 (one) or more acres; or fill or excavate
over 100 cubic yards, whichever is more restrictive; or any other site if
determined appropriate by the City Engineer due to potential impacts to
wetlands or sensitive receiving waters.
(1) Grading plan. A grading plan shall be provided that clearly
indicates the proposed land disturbance activities. Both existing and
proposed topography shall be shown and have a maximum contour
interval of two (2) feet. Drainage patterns shall be clearly shown using
arrows depicting direction of flow. Other information shall be shown as
required by the City based on specific project characteristics.
(2) Phasing plan. A phasing plan shall be provided that clearly
indicates the areas in the order they are to be disturbed and restored. The
phasing plan shall consider minimization of area and duration of exposed
soil and unstable conditions, minimization of the disturbance of natural soil
Ordinance 804
Page 10
cover and vegetation, erosion and sediment control measure installation,
weather conditions and the schedule for temporary and permanent
restoration. The area and duration of each phase shall be indicated on the
plan.
(3) Pond detail sheet. A pond detail sheet shall be provided for
each proposed storm water pond that shows detailed pond design
including normal water level, high water level, aquatic bench, maintenance
bench, outlet structures, emergency overflow locations and other project
specific data required by the City.
(4) Standard detail sheet. A standard detail sheet shall be provided
that consists of applicable construction details for approved erosion and
sediment control measures as developed by the City. Other techniques
may be used upon prior approval by the City with details provided by the
designer.
(5) Specifications. Written specifications for land disturbance
activities such as product descriptions, installation and maintenance
procedures required by the applicant to carry out the project in accordance
with this Chapter.
(6) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required
under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Storm Water Permit issued by the MPCA. The storm water pollution
prevention plan shall consist of three components, (1) a temporary erosion
and sediment control plan, (2) a permanent erosion and sediment control
plan, and (3) a narrative.
a. Temporary erosion and sediment control plan: Shall be
provided that indicates the location of perimeter controls,
construction fence, temporary sedimentation basins, inlet
protection, areas to be seeded, areas to be mulched or blanketed,
location of construction waste control (dumpsters, chemical
storage, concrete washout, portable restroom facilities, etc.) and all
other required temporary erosion and sediment control measures
as described in the City of Mounds View Land Disturbance and
Implementation Requirements. This plan shall also indicate staging
of temporary erosion control measures.
b. Permanent erosion and sediment control plan: Shall be
provided that indicates areas to be seeded and sodded, sediment
ponds, storm sewer systems and all other required permanent
erosion and sediment control measures. Permanent storm water
pollution controls including, but not limited to ponds, vegetated
buffers and structural measures shall be designed and constructed
in accordance with other Chapters of the City Code and
requirements of other agencies having jurisdiction.
Ordinance 804
Page 11
c. Narrative: Shall be provided that describes, at a minimum,
the nature of construction activity, person(s) responsible for
inspection and maintenance of site erosion and sediment control
including contact information, project phasing, schedules, along
with the timing, installation and maintenance of erosion and
sediment control measures and specifications necessary to carry
out the project.
Subd. 4. NPDES PERMIT DOCUMENTATION: The property owner owner’s
agent shall apply for and be issued a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) general storm water permit from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); and shall submit to the City
a copy of the MPCA Certificate of Permit Coverage.
1303.08: Permit Review and Approval Process
Subd. 1. PROCESS: LAND DISTURBANCE PLANS meeting the requirements of
Section 1303.07 Subd. 3 and minimum Best Management Practices
requirements of the City of Mounds View Land Disturbance and
Implementation Requirements will be reviewed administratively by City
Staff or by the City Council.
If the land disturbance plan indicates land disturbance of three or more
acres, the land disturbance plan shall be reviewed by the City Council.
The City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land
disturbance plan. If applicable, City Council action on the land
disturbance plan must be accomplished within 60 days following the date
the application for approval is filed with the City.
If the land disturbance plan indicates land disturbance of less than three
acres, the land disturbance plan may be approved administratively by City
staff, unless it is determined that City council review is necessary. City
Staff may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land disturbance
plan. For administrative reviews, City action on the plan will normally be
accomplished within 14 days following the date the application for
approval is filed with the City. Land disturbance plans denied at the Staff
level may be appealed to the City Council for Council review by the
applicant, if such appeal is filed in writing within 14 days of said appeal.
Subd. 2. APPROVAL STANDARDS:
a. Generally. All sites with land disturbance activities shall be prepared
and maintained to control against erosion and sedimentation as set
forth in this Chapter and the City of Mounds View land disturbance
plan and Implementation Requirements.
Ordinance 804
Page 12
b. Erosion and sediment control. Temporary and permanent erosion and
sediment control measures shall be installed on all sites as necessary
to prevent erosion and sedimentation from impacting any adjacent
property, rights-of-way, drainage system, lake, pond, wetland,
watercourse, natural resource or other protected area.
c. Implementation of land disturbance plan. All erosion and sediment
control measures must be operational prior to the start of any land
disturbance activity as specified in the storm water pollution prevention
plan, construction plans and specifications, the City of Mounds View
land disturbance plan and Implementation Requirements, or as
deemed necessary by the City based on actual site conditions.
d. Inspection. Inspection of the land disturbance plan measures will be
carried out as required by the City approved land disturbance permit
conditions of approval and the City of Mounds View land disturbance
plan and Implementation Requirements.
e. Maintenance. All erosion and sediment control measures must be
maintained throughout the duration of the project. Deficiencies found
through inspection of a site shall be repaired as necessary to bring the
site into conformance with this Chapter, the plans and specifications,
the City of Mounds View land disturbance plan and Implementation
Requirements and as set forth in the land disturbance permit
conditions of approval. At minimum, land disturbance plan items shall
be maintained as follows:
(1) If a perimeter erosion control device is found to have sediment
accumulation in excess of one third of the total device height, the
sediment shall be removed within twenty four (24) hours of discovery.
(2) If an erosion control device is found to be nonfunctional, it shall
be repaired or replaced within twenty four (24) hours of discovery.
(3) Temporary sediment basins shall be maintained when sediment
reaches one half the outlet height or one half the storage volume within
seventy two (72) hours after discovery.
(4) Additional erosion and sediment control measures shall be
installed as directed by the City as found necessary to protect life and
limb, the environment, properties or the stability of a property until final
stabilization, has been achieved.
Ordinance 804
Page 13
1303.09: Enforcement Actions
Subd. 1. RIGHT OF ENTRY: The applicant shall promptly allow the City and its
authorized representatives, upon presentation of credentials to:
a. Enter upon the permitted site for the purpose of obtaining information,
examination of records, conducting investigations, inspections or surveys.
b. Bring such equipment upon the permitted site as is necessary to
conduct such surveys and investigations.
c. Examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda
pertaining to activities or records required to be kept under the terms and
conditions of this permitted site.
d. Inspect the STORM WATER pollution control measures.
e. Sample and monitor any items or activities pertaining to storm water
pollution control measures.
f. Require removal of any temporary or permanent obstruction to the safe
and easy access of such an inspection upon the inspector’s request. The
cost of providing such access shall be born by the applicant.
Subd. 2. LETTER OF WARNING: The City may inspect the project at any time to
determine that adequate construction site runoff control is being exercised
in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, approved land
disturbance plan, or City of Mounds View Land Disturbance and
Implementation Requirements. If, based on the City inspection, the site is
out of compliance with said provisions, the City will issue a letter of
warning to the permit holder outlining the areas of the site in
noncompliance and specify a time period in which corrections shall occur.
Subd. 3. NOTICE OF VIOLATION: If the corrective work is not completed and
compliance with the Plan has not occurred within the time period set forth
in the letter of warning, the City will issue a notice of violation which
describes the type of penalty being issued to the applicant as described in
Section 1303.10.
Subd. 4. EMERGENCY CORRECTIVE ACTION: In the event circumstances
exist such that noncompliance poses an immediate danger to the public
health, safety and welfare, as determined by the City, the City may take
emergency corrective action to prevent any such danger. The City shall
make a reasonable effort to contact and direct the owner of the subject
property to take any necessary action. Any costs incurred by the City in
connection with any emergency action may be recovered from the
applicant’s financial security.
Ordinance 804
Page 14
1303.10: Penalties
Subd. 1. SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION: The City may, in writing, suspend or
revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this Chapter whenever the
permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied,
or is found to be in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the
provisions of this Chapter.
Subd. 2. CITY REMEDY: If compliance with the approved land disturbance plan
is not accomplished within the allowable time period described in the letter
of warning, the City may bring the project into compliance by use of the
financial security based on a time period written in the notice of violation.
Subd. 3. STOP WORK ORDER: If corrective actions identified in the letter of
warning are not completed by the time period set forth by the City in the
letter, the Public Works Director or his or her designee may issue an order
for the City to stop all inspections required for land use or building permit
approvals for the site until all corrective actions identified in the letter of
warning are completed. The applicant shall notify the Public Works
Director or his or her designee upon completion of the corrective action.
Once the Public Works Director has verified that corrective action has
been taken, he or she shall inform the applicant and the City shall resume
inspections on the site no later than the following business day.
Subd. 4. FINES: Any person that violates any provision of this Chapter may be
given an administrative citation and be required to pay an administrative
fine pursuant to the administrative offense provision of the City Code.
Subd. 5. MISDEMEANOR: Any person convicted of violating any provision of
this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine
or imprisonment as specified by state statute. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to an action against the financial security, a stop work
order or suspension or revocation of the permit by the City.
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 October 27,
2008
Second Reading and Adoption by the Mounds View City Council on November
10, 2008.
Ordinance 804
Page 15
Published on November 19, 2008.
_________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Jim Ericson, Clerk Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 08A
Meeting Date: November 10, 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.
Aspen Exteriors, Inc. General (Commercial) New
Circle Plumbing, Inc. HVAC New
KB Service Co. HVAC New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
RESOLUTION NO. 7354
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH THE TWIN CITIES NORTH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
WHEREAS, a lease agreement with the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce
(the “Chamber”) was originally negotiated in 2004, with a term running from January 1, 2004
to January 1, 2009 as a tri-party lease between the City, the Chamber, and the Mermaid,
and was subsequently assigned to the City, and
WHEREAS, the lease was renegotiated in August of 2007 eliminating references
to the Mermaid, decreasing leased space, incorporating an annual inflator and extending
the duration of the lease through December 31, 2009, and
WHEREAS, the Chamber requests to lease 100-square feet of additional office
space (identified as Office “A”) next to their present space and has agreed to increase their
lease payments by $100 per month in 2008 and $103 in 2009, and
WHEREAS, no other provisions of the lease agreement are affected except as noted
in the attached First Amendment to Lease Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Lease Agreement between the City
and the Chamber shall be amended in accordance with the attached First Amendment to
Lease Agreement document.
Adopted this 10th day of November, 2008.
______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Jim Ericson, Clerk - Administrator
(SEAL)
342666v2 JYY MU210-35
1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") made and
entered into this _____ day of November, 2008, by and between the City of Mounds View
(“Landlord”) and Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce (“Tenant”).
RECITALS:
A. Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Lease Agreement dated as of
August 27, 2007 (“Lease Agreement”), relating to Tenants lease of certain property from Landlord
(“Premises”);
B. Tenant intends to lease additional space from Landlord that is currently not included
as part of the Premises in the Lease Agreement;
C. All capitalized terms herein shall have the meanings ascribed in the Purchase
Agreement, as applicable, unless otherwise specifically defined herein.
WITNESSETH:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Recitals and other good and valuable
consideration, Landlord and Tenant hereby amend the Lease Agreement as follows:
1. Rent. The monetary figure “$885.80” in Section 3 of the Lease
Agreement shall be replaced with the monetary figure “995.80” and the monetary figure
“$912.37” in Section 3 of the Lease Agreement shall be replaced with the monetary
figure “$1,012.37.”
2. Exhibits. Exhibit A to the Lease Agreement shall be replaced with the
Exhibit A attached hereto to this Amendment.
3. Except as specifically provided herein, the Lease Agreement remains unchanged
and in full force and effect.
342666v2 JYY MU210-35
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first
above written.
TWIN CITIES NORTH CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
By
Its
The City of Mounds View, as owner of the Building and premises herein, hereby agrees to the
terms of this Lease.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
By
Its Mayor
By
Its Clerk/Administrator
342666v2 JYY MU210-35
3
EXHIBIT A
Floorplan Layout of the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce Area
YMCA SPACE
YMCA SPACE
Chamber
Space
A
Corrections made by Mayor Rob Marty and Clerk -Administrator Ericson.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
September 8, 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 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, September 8, 2008, City Council Agenda 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve the Monday, September 8, 2008 Agenda as 24
Amended. 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
None. 35
36
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 37
38
A. Continued: Select Senior Living Development 39
1. First Reading of Ordinance 813 to Rezone the Properties at 2865 40
County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road from R-O, 41
Residential-Office and R-1, Single Family Residential to R-4, High 42
Density Residential. 43
44
45
Mounds View City Council September 8, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 2
Planner Heller reviewed the update sheet including information from Ramsey County. Staff 1
discussed this with the Public Works Director at Ramsey County and they are not concerned with 2
the location of the driveway. The driveway has been moved south about 70 feet to allow for 3
more pine trees as a buffer between this project and the neighbors to the north. 4
5
Mayor Marty asked for any public comments at this point. 6
7
Kathy Guck of 8045 Groveland Road addressed the Council and said that the neighbors are still 8
against the height of the building and how far it encroaches into their neighborhood. She then 9
said that it would have been nice to have involved the neighbors at the start of the project rather 10
than after it is planned, because a lot of the frustrations could have been minimized. 11
12
Jean Miller of 2291 Hillview Road said that she has been excited about this senior housing being 13
proposed as she feels it is good for the community. She then said that there were people that 14
came to express their wishes to the Planning Commission and some changes were made before it 15
was sent on to Council for consideration. She further said that this builder is excellent and he 16
wants to bring a beautiful project to Mounds View. 17
18
Linda Benson of 8025 Groveland Road appeared before Council and said that they understand 19
that senior housing is not an issue. However, they need to fight for their right to have and 20
maintain their quality of life, and the right to enjoy their property. 21
22
Ms. Benson said that they have said that they would like the driveway as far away from their 23
home as possible. She then said that she would like all of the agreed to conditions listed in 24
writing in order to ensure that they are completed. Ms. Benson said she would like to only have 25
this as senior housing, and not allow it to be changed into an apartment home. 26
27
Ms. Benson said that she would like to ensure that the sign the developer agreed to install, stating 28
that the drive is for fire and emergency vehicles only is required in writing. She then thanked the 29
developer for his willingness to work with them. 30
31
Mike Guck of 8045 Groveland Road said that they were treated rudely by the members of the 32
Planning Commission when they attended their meeting. He then said that if they had met with 33
the developer earlier on, a lot of the frustration and concerns could have been reduced. He 34
further said that they met with the developer and, after doing so, a lot of conflict was resolved. 35
36
Mr. Randy Heltzer of 8180 Eastwood Road said that this seems like a big building going onto a 37
small piece of property. He then said that his major concern is that the Streets Task Force is 38
taking away his route from Fairchild and there will be more vehicles coming out of this complex 39
than turn right onto Fairchild now. He further said that he does not “buy” the safety reason for 40
shutting down the route and would like Council to look at that further. 41
42
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 8, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 3
Council Member Flaherty noted that this is the first reading on this matter. He then asked if the 1
trees proposed would be large enough to add to privacy and to screen the neighbors. 2
3
Joel Larson, developer, indicated they can move a 6 to 7 inch diameter tree with their tree spade, 4
so they are planning to put in some pretty good sized trees. He then said that he offered some 5
trees to the neighbors to block any potential headlights. 6
7
Council member Mueller said that she has had upwards of 30 phone calls on this project and the 8
count is about 27 to 3 in favor of this project. She then said that the developer has worked with 9
the neighbors and the City to minimize the impact of this project on the neighborhood. 10
11
Planner Heller indicated that the developer had to apply for a conditional use permit for the 12
senior housing and, if an owner wanted to change it to a regular apartment building, they would 13
need to apply for a conditional use permit and go through this entire process for approval. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Introduce the First Reading of 16
Ordinance 813 to Rezone the Properties at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 17
Groveland Road from R-O, Residential-Office and R-1, Single Family Residential to R-4, High 18
Density Residential. 19
20
Council Member Stigney indicated that it concerns him that this seems to be a big building 21
squeezed onto a small property. He then said that he has not heard any mention of what the 22
highest and best use of this property would be. He also wondered whether a mixed usage of 23
commercial and residential would actually bring more money in taxes to the City. 24
25
Council Member Stigney said that this is sitting in a TIF district and he would like to see it 26
closed out as a TIF parcel if this development is approved. 27
28
Mayor Marty indicated that he would agree that the parcels should be removed from the TIF 29
district as the revenue would come into the general fund of the City. 30
31
Council Member Mueller said that when the City goes from three parcels to one improved parcel 32
the taxes will be greatly increased. 33
34
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
Council Member Stigney indicated he abstained from voting as his questions have not been 37
answered. 38
39
2. Consider Resolution 7321, a Conditional Use Permit, Development 40
Review, and Preliminary Plat for a Senior Housing Development on 41
Properties located at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 42
Groveland Road. 43
44
45
Mounds View City Council September 8, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 4
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Marty. To Approve Resolution 7321, a Conditional Use Permit, 1
Development Review, and Preliminary Plat for a Senior Housing Development on Properties 2
located at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road. 3
4
Clerk Administrator Ericson noted that the developer would be put on notice that the 60 days 5
would be extended on the rezoning portion of this project. 6
7
Council Member Stigney indicated that he would like to know if the residents would have 8
recourse against the City if it can be shown that the value of their homes is negatively affected by 9
this development. He then said that he could not support the project until this information is 10
provided to him along with clarification on the other items. 11
12
Council Member Flaherty said that he thought that delivery hours were discussed and were not to 13
happen before 8:00 a.m. 14
15
Planner Heller indicated that the noise ordinance begins at 7:00 a.m. so that was the time that 16
was indicated. 17
18
The motion and second agreed to the time amendment to 7:00 a.m. 19
20
Ayes - 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 21
22
Council Member Stigney abstained from voting. 23
24
B. Public Hearing, First Reading of Ordinance 814 to Amend Zoning Code 25
Chapter 1120, adding a Section for Senior Housing Developments. 26
27
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. 28
29
Planner Heller explained that as Staff’s was working with the previously discussed development 30
it was brought to Staff attention that there were some amendments needed to allow for senior 31
housing developments. 32
33
Hearing no public comments, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:03P.M. 34
35
Council Member Flaherty said that he feels going to two acres is too small. 36
37
Council Member Mueller asked if there was a reason for the two acre recommendation. 38
39
Planner Heller indicated that the two acres makes the entire planning process more streamlined 40
and would eliminate the need for a variance by using the PUD process. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Introduce Ordinance 814 to 43
Amend Zoning Code Chapter 1120, adding a Section for Senior Housing Developments. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 8, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 5
Due to the confusion on allowable residents, the motioner and the seconder the reference to 1
parent in the language. 2
3
Council Member Stigney said that Section 1G states that it must have at least 60% of the units 4
for any of the types. He then said that he would like to have it broken down as to what 5
percentage is required for each type of housing. 6
7
Council Member Stigney said that he would like to consider leaving the property requirements at 8
three acres. He then said that the standard should be set at what the City wants so that it is 9
adequate for parking. He then said that he cannot support the ordinance as it is. 10
11
Council Member Hull asked what other cities do for parking. 12
13
Planner Heller indicated that the parking standards came from other cities. 14
15
Council Member Stigney asked how many parking spaces it provides and, despite what other 16
cities do, parking for the previously discussed senior development is inadequate in his opinion. 17
He then said that he would like to include parking for residents and visitors as well as staff. 18
19
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2(Stigney/Flaherty) Motion carried. 20
21
C. Resolution 7329 Authorizing Certification of the Proposed General Fund 22
Budget and Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2009. 23
24
Finance Director Beer presented the preliminary property tax levy and budget for 2009 to the 25
Council for consideration. The total levy including debt service for the 2004 street projects will 26
decrease by about $39,000. The total amount is $6,064,000 and staff recommends approval. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7329, 29
Authorizing Certification of the Proposed General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy for Fiscal 30
Year 2009. 31
32
Council Member Stigney indicated that Council would need to reduce the budget by $39,000 to 33
account for the previously approved decrease in franchise fees. 34
35
Council Member Hull asked whether the City is in danger of one year with a huge increase to 36
account for the fact that 2009 would be the fourth year in a row with no increase. 37
38
Finance Director Beer indicated that it is possible that could happen, however, the big increase in 39
local government aid made it not necessary to increase this year. He then said that, if the local 40
government aid were taken away, that would have an impact on the budget. 41
42
Council Member Flaherty said that his theory is that Council set the levy reduction fund with the 43
idea that TIF districts will begin coming on the tax rolls in 2014. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 8, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 6
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 1
2
D. Resolution 7331, Resolution Establishing Public Hearing Dates for the 3
Proposed General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2009 4
5
Finance Director Beer indicated that state statute requires public hearings on the tax levy and 6
budget and this Resolution would set a truth-in-taxation hearing for December 1, 2008 with a 7
continuation date of December 8, 2008. 8
9
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7331, 10
Resolution Establishing Public Hearing Dates for the Proposed General Fund Budget and 11
Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2009. 12
13
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 14
15
Finance Director Beer noted that CTV is experiencing technical difficulties and there is no sound 16
for this meeting going out over the cable channel. 17
18
8. CONSENT AGENDA 19
A. Licenses for Approval 20
B. Resolution 7330, Authorizing License Fee(s) for Family Rental Housing 21
C. Resolution 7332, Approving the Non-Union Retirement Health Savings Plan 22
D. Setting a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m. on September 22, 2008 to Consider a 23
Major Subdivision and PUD Amendment to Have Retail as An Allowed Use 24
at the Mermaid 25
26
Council Member Stigney requested that Item C be removed for discussion. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A, B, and D as 29
Presented. 30
31
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 32
33
C. Resolution 7332, Approving the Non-Union Retirement Health Savings Plan 34
35
Council Member Stigney asked why the Union and Non-Union are different for the plan. 36
37
Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that this is the contribution of the employee to this account 38
and it does not affect the City. This allows employees, based on union or non-union, to 39
contribute different amounts. 40
41
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7332, 42
Approving the Non-Union Retirement Health Savings Plan. 43
44
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 45
Mounds View City Council September 8, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 7
1
Council Member Flaherty was not present for the vote. 2
3
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 4
5
Council Member Mueller indicated that she had a few questions that she addressed earlier with 6
Staff. She then reviewed the answers to the questions as Finance Director Beer had to leave the 7
meeting. 8
9
Council Member Stigney asked what radio ear muffs are for. 10
11
Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that the ear muffs are for park personnel that are using 12
equipment and these contained a radio and were returned. 13
14
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve Just and Correct Claims as presented. 15
16
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 17
18
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 19
20
A. July 28, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes 21
22
Council Member Stigney indicated that he provided changes to these at a previous meeting but 23
they are not reflected in the Minutes presented. 24
25
Council realized that these Minutes were already reviewed and amended. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve the Minutes of July 28, 2008, as Previously 28
Amended. 29
30
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 31
32
11. REPORTS 33
34
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 35
36
Mayor Marty said that he was approached today by a developer who asked him for his opinion of 37
having a church come in across the street from City Hall in the Belting buidling. He then said 38
that he voiced some concerns regarding the remodeling that would be necessary, parking issues, 39
the fact that the Church could mean that the property could come off the tax rolls. 40
41
Clerk Administrator Ericson said that staff would refer them over to Silver View Plaza to see if 42
they have an ability to accommodate them. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 8, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 8
Mayor Marty reminded everyone that the primary election is tomorrow, September 9, 2008 from 1
7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 2
3
Council Member Mueller indicated that she was privileged to attend the neighborhood meeting 4
for the concerned Irondale Road residents. There was a great turn out and great discussion and 5
she looks forward to continuing to work with this group as they form their neighborhood watch 6
association. 7
8
Council Member Mueller noted that Irondale High School played Spring Lake Park and Irondale 9
won 21 to 14 in a great football game. She then said that Tyler Abrahamson completed his Eagle 10
Scout project by building a rain garden at Silver View Park. The rain garden that he and his 11
scout volunteers constructed planted two types of native grasses and she was not able to take 12
pictures of the project but it was completed successfully and she looks forward to being invited 13
to his court of honor award as Eagle Scout. 14
15
B. Reports of Staff 16
17
Clerk Administrator Ericson updated Council on the Xcel pipeline project and the shutoff valve. 18
A response was received and they are indicating that they will put in the automatic shut off valve 19
at City expense but it may not function as the City envisions. 20
21
Council Member Mueller said that she is concerned that a year ago in July or August none of this 22
was brought up,and it has taken this long to come up with this answer and it concerns her that it 23
took them a year to “craft” this story and wonders whether this is the real story. She then said 24
that the $50.00 Xcel offered for the easement is a slap in the face. 25
26
Council Member Stigney indicated that stating that they will not shut off the automatic safety 27
valve until someone goes out to review the situation and the $50.00 is ridiculous. 28
29
Council agreed that $50.00 is not a fair market valuation of the easement property and asked 30
Staff to request that Xcel attend an upcoming worksession to discuss the matter. 31
32
Clerk Administrator Ericson said that if the City would not oppose expansion of the east/west 33
runway the MAC would be willing to put a conservation easement on the 27 acres of adjacent to 34
Mounds View rather than developing it. 35
36
Mayor Marty said that if you give the MAC an inch they go a mile, so he would not support 37
expanding the east/west runway. 38
39
Council Member Stigney indicated that he would like to leave this as a minor airport. 40
41
Council agreed they were not willing to deal on any expansion to the airport. 42
43
Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that Roberts is hoping to finish everything by September 44
15, 2008. 45
Mounds View City Council September 8, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 9
1
Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that the Chamber would like two designated parking spots 2
and a sign or two to announce their location. 3
4
Council Member Mueller said that there is an office building next door that they could move into 5
and she would like to keep them in the Community Center, so a sign or two would be fine with 6
her to maintain the tenant. 7
8
Council agreed. 9
10
Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that the Deputy Chief did an excellent job at the Irondale 11
community meeting discussing how to make properties less vulnerable to burglary. 12
13
Clerk Administrator Ericson explained that the City is going to put a plan for storm water 14
ponding for Rice Creek to consider. 15
16
Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that a six month review is due for him and he would like 17
to get that scheduled. 18
19
Council set the review for September 22, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. 20
21
Council Member Stigney said that there has never been an initial review and what Council 22
wanted to do has not been done, and that means he has not had direction on what Council wanted 23
him to do so this is a review on how he is doing on what he thinks needed to be done. 24
25
Regarding the scheduled “Mini retreat” scheduled for September 29th at the new Fire Station in 26
Blaine, Council Member Stigney indicated that he would not go up to Blaine for this type of 27
meeting as that prevents residents from attending. 28
29
Council Member Mueller said that she would like to have the meeting within Mounds View. 30
31
Mayor Marty said that he would like to review the goals and see how the Council is progressing 32
on its goals. 33
34
Council Member Stigney indicated that he would also like to have the meeting broadcast. 35
36
Mayor Marty indicated that he enjoys the give and take conversation between Council and Staff 37
that can happen when the meeting is not broadcast, but that it is a public meeting and open to 38
anyone who would like to attend. 39
40
Council agreed to hold the meeting on City property with no television and no goal discussion. 41
42
C. Reports of City Attorney 43
44
None. 45
46
Mounds View City Council September 8, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 6, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. 2
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 22, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. 3
4
13. ADJOURNMENT 5
6
The meeting was recessed at 9:57 p.m. to executive session to discuss union contract 7
negotiations. 8
9
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 10
11
Transcribed by: 12
13
14
Joan Lenzmeier 15
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 16
Corrections made by Clerk Administrator Ericson, Community Development Director Ken Roberts and Planning Associate Heidi Heller
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
September 22, 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 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Hull, Flaherty (not present), and Mueller 16
17
NOT PRESENT: None. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
Clerk Administrator Ericson noted that Item 8J, Resolution 7341 was added to the Agenda. 22
23
A. Monday, September 22, 2008, City Council Agenda 24
25
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve the Monday, September 22, 2008 Agenda as 26
Amended. 27
28
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 29
30
5. PUBLIC INPUT 31
32
Tom Winiecki of 2748 Sherwood Road asked the Council when the letter would go out to the 33
citizens that are affected by the rain gardens. 34
35
Joe Rhein, consultant engineer with Bonestroo, indicated that a draft went out to the Committee 36
and that will be reviewed by staff and, once reviewed and revised, the letter will be sent out to 37
residents. 38
39
Ken Glidden of 5240 Edgewood Drive asked when the next budget session is scheduled. 40
41
Finance Director Beer indicated the next worksession is October 6, 2008. 42
43
Mr. Glidden asked how the predicted shortfall is being handled. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 2
Finance Director Beer indicated that there was a transfer of $248,000 from the levy reduction 1
fund. 2
3
Mr. Glidden asked whether reduction in property values will affect the budget. 4
5
Finance Director Beer indicated that the impact shows up in 2010 as the 2009 market value has 6
already been sent. 7
8
Dan Mueller of 8343 Groveland Road noted that at one of the last meetings the franchise fee was 9
reduced by .25%. He then said that he understood that the money goes to roads and it goes to 10
public safety and he would like to know why some voted not to reduce and some voted to reduce 11
franchise fees. 12
13
Mayor Marty indicated that, in 2005, the City came into money when the golf course was sold, 14
and he wanted to use that as a starting point to start reducing the franchise fee but that did not go 15
anywhere. He then said that he has been approached regarding the franchise fee and, he feels, 16
that it is time to reduce the franchise fee, even if slightly. 17
18
Mr. Mueller indicated that residents are expecting that their streets are going to be fixed and it 19
concerns him that the franchise fee was reduced because that was to be one of the funding 20
sources for the roads. 21
22
Mr. Mueller said that he would present a check in the amount of $4.56 to the City to contribute 23
toward the road project with his franchise fee savings. 24
25
Mayor Marty indicated that the franchise fee was reduced by .25% which is approximately 26
$39,000., annually. Half of the franchise fee goes toward streets and the other half goes into the 27
general fund to assist with funding the operations of the City. 28
29
Council Member Stigney said that the biggest benefactor of the franchise reduction is Medtronic. 30
31
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 32
33
A. Award to Steven Petty – Mayor’s Choice Award – Car Show 34
35
Mayor Marty presented an award to Steven Petty for the Mayor’s Choice at the Festival in the 36
Park Car Show. 37
38
B. Constitution Week Sept 17 – 23 Reminder 39
40
Mayor Marty announced Constitution Week September 17 – 23, 2008. 41
42
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 43
A. 7:05pm Public Hearing to Consider a Major Subdivision and PUD 44
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 3
Amendment to Add “Retail” as an Allowed Use at the Mermaid, 2200 1
County Highway 10. 2
Planner Heller provided an overview of the requested major subdivision and PUD amendment to 3
add retail as an allowed use at the Mermaid. She then said that the developer has requested a 4
third lot be added just two hours before this meeting. Therefore, staff recommends that this 5
matter be tabled to allow time for staff to review the request and discuss it with both the City 6
Attorney and the developer’s attorney. 7
8
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. 9
10
Barb Haake of 3025 County Road I said that she was a part of the Rice Creek Watershed work in 11
the past. Ms. Haake asked what has changed in the Ordinance that would allow reduction in 12
parking. Planner Heller indicated that she is not sure of the intentions of the owners with regard 13
to selling but cross access parking will be a necessary requirement no matter what the intent. 14
15
Community Development Director Roberts indicated that there was talk of a coffee shop with a 16
drive through but that is all speculative. He then said that cross easements for parking would 17
need to be recorded with the plat, if the project moves forward. 18
19
Ken Glidden of 5240 Edgewood Drive asked if there is any experience with shared ownership of 20
commercial property in the City and how it works. Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that 21
the Mermaid is recorded as a separate lot, and the AmericInn Hotel is a separate lot as well. 22
23
Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, said that the City has TIF districts and that would be an area 24
that already has or is eligible for TIF money, so he is wondering if that means that new 25
construction would be eligible. Finance Director Beer provided an explanation of the TIF district 26
structure. 27
28
Council Member Mueller indicated that, regarding the 60-day ru le, she is concerned that the City 29
would be held to October 26 for making a decision, even if the company is the one making last 30
minute changes. She then asked if the clock resets now that the plan was changed. 31
32
Community Development Director Roberts noted that the retail piece of this project would be 33
subject to the existing 60 day rule but the other piece, since the request was changed, would have 34
60 days from the submittal. He then said that, if staff cannot obtain all of the information in time 35
to meet the Planning Commission and Council schedule, an extension can be requested. 36
37
Council Member Mueller indicated that she would like to obtain an extension. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Stigney. To Obtain a 60 Day Extension. 40
41
Mayor Marty noted that the applicants came in with a last minute change and that is the reason 42
for the extension. 43
44
Ayes – 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 45
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Mueller. To Continue the Public Hearing to October 13, 2008. 2
3
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4
5
B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 814, Amending Zoning Code 6
Chapter 1120.03, Subd. 1, adding a Section for Senior Housing 7
Developments. (ROLL CALL VOTE) 8
9
Planner Heller reviewed Ordinance 814, amending the Zoning Code to allow for senior housing 10
developments. 11
12
Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that Council Member Flaherty has asked for clarification 13
as to what the rationale would be for going with two acre minimums. 14
15
Community Development Director Roberts noted that the two acres was originated with the 16
Planning Commission because it would give developers more flexibility and more opportunities 17
to build senior housing. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Ordinance 814, 20
Amending Zoning Code Chapter 1120.03, Subd. 1, adding a Section for Senior Housing 21
Developments. 22
23
Council Member Stigney indicated that Item 1 says the building must have 60% designated for 24
assisted living, Alzheimer’s or memory care. He then said that he thinks that independent living 25
should be included. He then said that he thinks the area requirement should stay at three acres. 26
27
Council Member Stigney indicated that nursing homes and memory care seems new to him. 28
Planner Heller indicated that the word nursing homes is currently in the code. 29
30
Council Member Stigney indicated that he is opposed to the parking as recommended and cannot 31
support the Ordinance. 32
33
Mayor Marty indicated that there are three different sites with independent living in the City at 34
this time. 35
36
ROLL CALL: Mueller/Hull/Stigney/Marty 37
38
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 39
40
C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 808, an Ordinance Adding a 41
New Chapter 611 to the City Code Relating to Outdoor Special Events. 42
(ROLL CALL VOTE) 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 5
Clerk Administrator Ericson reviewed Ordinance 808 regulating special events. He then 1
explained that private events do not require a permit. 2
3
Barbara Haake asked whether block parties would need a permit and whether National Night Out 4
gatherings would be subject to the permit also. Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that this 5
was not intended to apply to National Night Out or other block parties. He then said that, if the 6
general public is not invited to attend, then a special events permit is not necessary. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Ordinance 808, an 9
Ordinance Adding a New Chapter 611 to the City Code Relating to Outdoor Special Events and 10
Publication of an Ordinance Summary. 11
12
ROLL CALL: Mueller/Hull/Stigney/Marty 13
14
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 15
16
D. Resolution 7334, a Resolution Requesting a Time Extension for Completing 17
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. 18
19
Community Development Director Roberts noted that Staff has been working on the 20
Comprehensive Plan update but will not be able to meet the required deadlines. He then 21
explained that there is a process that can be followed to request an extension. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7334, a 24
Resolution Requesting a Time Extension for Completing the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. 25
26
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
E. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 815, an Ordinance Amending 29
Sect. 702.01, Subd 13 Relating To Crimes Against Public Safety And Health 30
31
Clerk Administrator Ericson explained that Ordinance 815 is a Code amendment recommended 32
by the prosecuting attorney to address the ambiguity and add language clarifying that the 33
discharge of firearms within City limits is not allowed. 34
35
Council Member Mueller asked how this plays into her constitutional right to bear arms. 36
37
Mayor Marty noted that in self defense on your own property it would not be an issue. 38
39
Attorney Riggs indicated that cities have the ability to not allow discharge of firearms within the 40
City limits. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Introduce the First Reading of 43
Ordinance 815, an Ordinance Amending Section 702.01, Subd. 13 Relating to Crimes Against 44
Public Safety and Health. 45
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 6
1
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 2
3
F. Resolution 7336 Approving Traffic Calming Elements on Red Oak Drive for 4
the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project. 5
6
Joe Rhein, consulting engineer with Bonestroo, explained the design elements for traffic calming 7
measures on Red Oak Drive. The recommendation was reviewed at a work session and the plan 8
is before Council for approval by Resolution. The two primary elements are chokers, and the 9
placement of crosswalk pavement markers. 10
11
Council Member Mueller asked whether the cost estimate for the chokers was $32,000 for 8 and 12
$36,000 for 9 chokers. Mr. Rhein indicated that is the current estimate. 13
14
Mayor Marty indicated he would be fine with the way the Resolution reads as it does not 15
preclude the fact that, six years from now, the City could amend the plan and add another choker 16
if that is deemed appropriate at the time. 17
18
Council Member Mueller said that she is discouraged that the funding mechanism is not in place 19
and, she does not believe that a choker has been proven to be an effective traffic calming 20
measure. 21
22
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7336, 23
Approving Traffic Calming Elements on Red Oak Drive for the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility 24
Improvement Project. 25
26
Council Member Stigney indicated he has concerns about the traffic calming recommendations. 27
28
Mayor Marty indicated that Red Oak Drive and Groveland have, historically, been the most 29
consistent with traffic and speeding issues. This is the first street being reconstructed and this is 30
something that has been recommended as a way to slow traffic. 31
32
Valerie Amundsen indicated that the Streets Committee discussed the budget for the projects and 33
then discussed the fast moving traffic along a pedestrian route. 34
35
Council Member Stigney indicated that he feels the locations should be set. 36
37
Council Member Mueller said that she hopes that traffic does not get rerouted to Eastwood and 38
Groveland once the chokers are installed. 39
40
Clerk Administrator Ericson noted that Council Member Flaherty had commented that he does 41
not feel that nine chokers would be necessary. 42
43
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 Motion carried. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 7
G. Resolution 7338 Approving the Policy to Address Non-Conforming Driveways 1
within the Street and Utility Improvement Program. 2
3
Joe Rhein, consulting engineer with Bonestroo, provided an overview of Resolution 7338 which 4
addresses non-conforming driveways within the street and utility improvement program. 5
6
Mayor Marty indicated that he likes the curb cut request application and would like to see staff 7
utilize that. He then said that he received feedback from people who were grandfathered in with 8
a second curb cut and there was a policy, during assessing for streets, that seniors could have 9
costs deferred. 10
11
Council Member Mueller said that she does not think it fair to limit the deferral to seniors only. 12
13
Mayor Marty indicated that it was not just limited to seniors. 14
15
Clerk Administrator Ericson said that there are no assessments so it would be payments that 16
would need to be deferred and Staff would need to look into how to implement any type of 17
deferral process. 18
19
Attorney Riggs explained that deferrals are limited by state statute. 20
21
Mike Read of 2208 Lois Drive indicated that he put a garage on the slab that already existed but 22
has no driveway there and he could not, based on some of the conditions listed, have a second 23
curb cut. Mr. Read said that he does not see why he could not have a second curb cut. Mayor 24
Marty explained that the garage was approved with the condition that there be no second curb cut 25
and that is why. 26
27
Clerk Administrator Ericson explained that a variance request is an option but, hardship would 28
need to be proven to the Planning Commission and City Council. 29
30
D. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Approve 31
Resolution 7338 Approving the Policy to Address Non-Conforming Driveways 32
within the Street and Utility Improvement Program as Amended during 33
discussions with Joe Rhein. 34
35
Council Member Mueller said that she is concerned about Red Oak Drive and she would like 36
two accesses as she wants a horseshoe shaped drive and she wonders how the process would 37
work. 38
39
Clerk Administrator Ericson said that property owners could have driveways done during the 40
project and, any additional curb cuts approved by the Planning Commission or Council, would 41
need to be added to the plan. 42
43
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 44
45
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 8
E. Resolution 7339 Authorizing the Preliminary Survey Activities for Area C of 1
the Street and Utility Improvement Program. 2
3
Joe Rhein, consulting engineer with Bonestroo, explained that Staff is working with Rice Creek 4
Watershed District to eliminate the need for regional ponding and the need to acquire property 5
and place a pond in backyards. The plan will be presented to the Rice Creek Watershed District 6
Board, and the hope is that it will be approved and Staff could eliminate the pond from the plan. 7
This would be a fall back plan, to do a preliminary survey for Area C, in the event that the pond 8
issue is not resolved in time to avoid delaying the project. 9
10
Mayor Marty indicated that he is hopeful that the pond would not be required and applauds the 11
Committee and Staff for being proactive in this approach. 12
13
Valerie Amundsen said that she does not want to lock the City into a project for Area C as the 14
hope is that the pond is not going to be necessary. 15
16
Barbara Haake said that she was at the meeting on this matter with Rice Creek Watershed 17
District and noted that the rules are more flexible than they have been before. She then said that 18
if the same quantity of water can be handled in other ways that the pond should be able to be 19
eliminated. She also said that Rice Creek Watershed District is open to working with the City. 20
21
Council Member Mueller asked how the City would fund the survey at this point in time when it 22
was planned for a year from now. 23
24
Mr. Rhein indicated that there will be a cost savings for the overall project if the City can get the 25
boulevard infiltration approved. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7339 28
Authorizing the Preliminary Survey Activities for Area C of the Street and Utility Improvement 29
Program. 30
31
Council Member Stigney indicated he watched this discussion at the Streets Task Force meeting 32
and he feels the Task Force did an excellent job. 33
34
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
Council considered Just and Correct Claims at this time. 37
38
H. Resolution 7337 Approving a Labor Agreement with the Mounds View Public 39
Works Bargaining Unit for 2008 – 2009 40
41
Clerk Administrator Ericson presented Resolution 7337, Approving a Labor Agreement with the 42
Mounds View Public Works Bargaining Unit for 2008 – 2009. 43
44
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 9
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Mueller. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7337, 1
Approving a Labor Agreement with the Mounds View Public Works Bargaining Unit for 2008 – 2
2009. 3
4
Ayes – 3 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 5
6
8. CONSENT AGENDA 7
8
A. Licenses for Approval 9
B. Resolution 7324, Authorizing a One Day Charitable Gambling Permit 10
(Raffle) 11
for the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club on April 3, 2009, located at 12
The Mermaid. 13
C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:10pm to Consider 14
Reassessment of the H2 and 2003 Street Project Areas. 15
D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:15pm to Consider 16
Assessments for Delinquent Utility Bills. 17
E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:20pm to Consider 18
Assessments for Diseased Trees. 19
F. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:25pm to Consider 20
Assessments for Abated Properties. 21
G. Resolution 7333 Approving Lease Agreement Amendment #3 with Verizon 22
Wireless for the Installation of a Generator at the Water Tower Site. 23
H. Resolution 7335, Authorizing a Request for a MnDOT Cooperative 24
Agreement Project at the Intersection of County Highway 10 and County 25
Road H. 26
I. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:05 p.m., to 27
Consider the 2009 Mounds View Fee Schedule. 28
J. Resolution 7341, a Resolution Authorizing the Mounds View Police 29
Department to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota 30
Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, for the Safe and Sober 31
Project from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. 32
33
Council member Mueller requested that Item J be removed for discussion. 34
35
Council Member Stigney requested that Item G be removed for discussion. 36
37
Mayor Marty removed Item C for discussion. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A, B, D, E, F, H, and I 40
as Presented. 41
42
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 43
44
C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, October 18, 2008 at 7:10pm to Consider 45
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 10
Reassessment of the H2 and 2003 Street Project Areas. 1
2
Mayor Marty noted that this is a reassessment hearing public hearing and invited residents to 3
attend. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Mueller. To Approve Consent Agenda Item C, Setting a Public 6
Hearing for Monday, October 18, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. to Consider Reassessment of the H2 and 7
2003 Street Project Areas. 8
9
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 10
11
G. Resolution 7333 Approving Lease Agreement Amendment #3 with Verizon 12
Wireless for the Installation of a Generator at the Water Tower Site 13
14
Council Member Stigney indicated that he would like to see some compensation for allowing this 15
and he would like to see maintenance spelled out as well as restoration of the area once the 16
installation is completed. He further said that the City should be reimbursed for the request to 17
install this many feet through City property. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Direct Staff to request Adequate Reimbursement for 20
Use of City Property and Postpone Resolution 7333. 21
22
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
J. Resolution 7341, a Resolution Authorizing the Mounds View Police 25
Department to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota 26
Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, for the Safe and Sober 27
Project from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. 28
29
Council Member Mueller indicated that she discussed this with the Chief today. She then read 30
background information on the program and then congratulated the Police Department. 31
32
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 7341, a 33
Resolution Authorizing the Mounds View Police Department to Enter into a Grant Agreement 34
with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, for the Safe and Sober 35
Project from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. 36
37
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 38
39
Mayor Marty suggested working with Arden Hills cooperatively or with a letter of support for 40
upgrading this intersection. 41
42
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 43
44
(This item was handled after Item 7H.) 45
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 11
1
Council Member Mueller asked if the invoice from Game Time was for all equipment installed 2
in the City Hall park. 3
4
Council Member Mueller asked if the “Vote Here” sign could be reused for subsequent elections. 5
6
Mayor Marty asked about other professional services for the City Attorney and asked whether the 7
development projects would be billed back to the property owners. 8
9
Clerk Administrator indicated that all those that relate to development situations would be billed 10
to the property owner. 11
12
Council Member Mueller asked about the soccer equipment and what park it was for. 13
14
Staff indicated it was equipment for Oakwood Park. 15
16
Council Member Mueller asked about the water break charge from Dave Perkins Contracting. 17
Finance Director Beer explained where the water break was and indicated it may be necessary to 18
increase the water utility fee as the City has exceeded the amount taken in for repairs this year. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve Just and Correct Claims as presented. 21
22
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25
A. August 11, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes 26
27
Mayor Marty, Page 3, Line 45 there is no record of the vote should be added and Page 9, Line 4. 28
Page 16 remove “to help”. Page 8, Line 24, add to continue. Page 9, Line 18, insert “was”. Line 29
19, Page 10, clarify the comment. Line 42, correct Sheriff. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve the Minutes of August 11, 2008, as Amended 32
33
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 34
35
B. September 8, 2008 Executive Session Minutes 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Hull. To Approve the September 8, 2008 Executive Session 38
Minutes as Presented. 39
40
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 41
42
11. REPORTS 43
44
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 45
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 12
1
Mayor Marty asked whether there has been a result for the salary and compensation survey. 2
Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that he would be meeting with Sharon and will pass along 3
the update to the council as soon as possible. 4
5
Mayor Marty indicated that he would like to work on the contract with the Banquet Center 6
Coordinator for next year. He then said that he would like to look at the contract with the 7
YMCA as well. 8
9
Council Member Mueller indicated that scouting lost an important member of its community as 10
Cheryl Evans passed away from cancer. 11
12
Council Member Mueller read a letter thanking officers for their assistance with a suicidal 13
person. 14
15
Council Member Mueller indicated that Paul Rignell has provided three issues of the Sun Focus 16
and he would like Council to see that in Columbia Heights/Fridley edition dated September 11, 17
2008 there is a copy of the man who won a trophy in the car show. In the Blaine edition the 18
winner from Blaine is shown, and the people’s choice award winner is in the Mounds View copy. 19
20
Council Member Stigney indicated that it is his understanding that, at the very next meeting after 21
a closed session, the Council is to report on its closed session. He then commented that it is past 22
10:00 p.m. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Extend the Meeting to Allow for Comment and 25
Summary of the Closed Session. 26
27
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
B. Reports of Staff 30
31
Clerk Administrator Ericson noted that prior to the EDA meeting an executive session was held 32
to review the performance of the City Administrator. He then summarized that Council 33
determined his performance to be satisfactory and also provided a few opportunities to grow and 34
improve in his performance as the City Administrator. 35
36
Council Member Stigney indicated that the review was satisfactory or better. 37
38
Clerk Administrator Ericson noted that the mini retreat is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. at Random 39
Park, next Monday, September 29, 2008. 40
41
Mayor Marty noted that there was an article in the September 8, 2008 edition of the Star Tribune 42
suggesting that cities and counties handle their business away from the camera. He then said 43
that, though the meetings may go long, all business is conducted publicly before the cameras and 44
is open to the public in the City of Mounds View. 45
Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008
Regular Meeting Page 13
1
C. Reports of City Attorney 2
3
Attorney Riggs provided an update and noted that the Silver Lake Woods Townhome 4
Association residents are concerned with the increased costs provided by the City Engineer for 5
their proposed project. 6
7
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 6, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. 8
Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 13, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. 9
10
13. ADJOURNMENT 11
12
The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. 13
14
Transcribed by: 15
16
17
Joan Lenzmeier 18
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 19
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Executive Session Mounds View City Hall
November 3, 2008
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting of the Mounds View City Council was called to order at 10:38 pm.
2. ROLL CALL: Mayor Marty, Council Members Stigney, Flaherty, Hull and Mueller
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
4. COUNCIL BUSINESS
Motion to Recess to Executive Session to Discuss Labor Negotiations by Council
Member Mueller, seconded by Council member Hull
Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion approved.
At this point, the Council recessed to Executive Session, reconvening at 10:44 pm. In
addition to the City Council members indicated above, Clerk-Administrator Jim Ericson
and Finance Director Mark Beer were in attendance for said executive session.
Clerk-Administrator Ericson briefed the City Council members regarding recent
discussions with the LELS business agent for the patrol officers and investigators. The
Council provided direction to the Clerk-Administrator to extend a revised offer contract
offer to the group for their consideration.
5. ADJOURN
Having no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned from the executive
session at 10:59 pm.
Respectfully Submitted:
James Ericson
Clerk-Administrator