HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/04/24
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, April 24, 2006
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
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.
** Please remind citizens of the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, April 29, 2006
from 9am to 12pm. ***
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Resolution 6798, A Resolution of Appreciation for Stan McDonald for over four years of dedicated
service with the Mounds View Economic Development Commission (EDC).
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 PM. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use permit for an Over-size garage at
8495 Sunnyside Road.
B. Resolution 6794 Approving the Final Plat and Development Agreement for the Hidden Hollow South
Major Subdivision
C. First Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Charter
D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 771, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 502 and 503 of
the Municipal Code relating to Liquor Licenses. (ROLL CALL VOTE)
E. Consideration of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code
relating to Signs and Billboards (ROLL CALL VOTE)
F. Resolution 6795, Step Increase for Nick Fleischhacker, Public Works.
G. Resolution 6796, Approving the Mounds View City Job Descriptions.
H. Resolution 6799 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids
and Setting a Bid Date for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project.
I. Resolution 6800 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids
and Setting a Bid Date for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project.
J. Resolution 6801 Approval of the LELS Local 204 (Police Officers) 2006-2007 Labor Agreement.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 pm, Monday, May 8, 2006 to Reconsider an Expired Conditional Use
Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive
B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10pm, Monday, May 8, 2006 for a Second Reading and Adoption of
Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter.
C. Resolution 6797 Designating the 2005 Mounds View Citizenship Award
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2006
Page 2
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 10, 2006 City Council Meeting.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Medtronic Permit Fee Update
2. Premium Stop Update (Verbal Report)
3. Announce the Town Hall Meeting scheduled for Saturday, April 29, 2006 @7pm
C. Reports of City Attorney
1. Amundsen Update
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 1, 2006 @ 7pm
Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 8, 2006 @ 7pm
Item 06A
Special Order of Business
April 24, 2006
City Administrator Review: _________ RESOLUTION NO. 6798
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO STAN MCDONALD FOR HIS 4 YEARS
OF SERVICE WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC)
WHEREAS, Stan McDonald was appointed to the Economic Development
Commission in January of 2002 and had extensive experience working for
businesses; and
WHEREAS, Stan McDonald has served as a residing representative on
the Economic Development Commission with dedication and a high level of
enthusiasm; and,
WHEREAS, Stan McDonald has gained the respect and gratitude of his
fellow Economic Development Commissioners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Mounds View, on behalf of the residents of the City of Mounds View,
expresses its appreciation to Stan McDonald for his dedication and devoted
service on the Mounds View Economic Development Commission.
Adopted this 24th day of April, 2006.
ATTEST:
_________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
______________________ ____________________
Councilmember Flaherty Councilmember Gunn
______________________ _____________________
Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Thomas
________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk/Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 7A
Meeting Date: April 24, 2006
Type of Business: PH & CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use
Permit for an Over-size Garage at 8495 Sunnyside
Road
Introduction:
The applicants, Don and Diane Balk, reside at 8478 Long Lake Road and own the vacant lot
adjacent to the west at the corner of Long Lake Road (formerly County Road J) and
Sunnyside Road. The Balks would like to build a new home on the vacant lot and sell their
old home. A conditional use permit is required because the Balks have a recreational vehicle
that they would like to park inside the garage, and in so doing, had to expand the footprint of
the garage to 1,062 square feet. The maximum sized garage permissible without a CUP is
952 square feet. Without the extra depth needed for the RV (an additional nine feet) the
garage would not necessitate a CUP.
Discussion:
Section 1106.4, Subdivision 6, lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for
garages larger than 952 square feet. These requirements, such as setbacks and maximum
square-footage are all satisfied with this proposal. The setback for an attached garage is five
feet; the applicants are proposing to construct the garage six feet from the south side
property line and 30 feet from the front lot line, matching the setback of the home to the south
of the vacant lot. The Code sets an upper limit of accessory storage space on a property at
1,800 square feet. The square footage of the proposed garage is 1,062 square feet, which
would still allow for a shed to be constructed at some point in the future, if the applicants so
desired.
Adverse Effects & CUP Requirements
As is the case with every conditional use permit application, the City is required to consider
the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The findings of the City shall
be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors:
• Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
• The Geographical Area Involved
• Whether such use will tend to depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
• The Character of the Surrounding Area
• The demonstrated need for such a use.
Balk Report
April 24, 2006
Page 2
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of residential areas so as to improve
the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in
general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 8495 Sunnyside Road, as low-
density residential. Most of the lots in this area of Mounds View exceed the minimum area
requirements and are able to support larger garages. The proposed garage, as viewed from
the street, would not appear to be an oversized garage, as the proposed two-story house
dominates the view. Given that the garage is attached and designed to blend into the house
façade, it is not believed that the construction of the proposed 1,062 square-foot garage
would depreciate the neighborhood in any way. This proposal would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and would fit with the general character of the neighborhood. The over-
size garage would allow the applicants the opportunity to park their RV inside rather than
outside, which is a clear demonstration of need. Staff has reviewed the building plans and
visited the vacant lot and believes that the proposed garage would maintain a sense of
balance and proportion on the property. There do not appear to be any adverse effects
resulting from this proposal.
According to Section 1125.01, Subd. 3, of the Zoning Code, the City is to consider eight
general conditional use permit requirements in addition to the advice and recommendation of
the Planning Commission. These general criteria with responses are as follows:
1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
It is not expected that the oversized garage would have any impact on existing
parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve this area.
2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent
residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and
there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
The garage would not appear to be any larger than a standard three-car garage but for
the added length of the RV stall, which will be blended into the design of the house.
3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The garage and house will be new construction and should not cause any adverse
impacts to adjoining property owners.
4. The use, in the opinion of the City, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City
and to the existing land use.
A three stall garage is not out of the ordinary, and the added depth of the third stall will
allow for the applicant’s RV to be parked inside rather than outside.
Balk Report
April 24, 2006
Page 3
5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the
zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The City Code conditionally allows for garages larger than 952 square feet as long as
certain requirements and criteria are met. This proposal satisfies all dimensional and
zoning requirements.
6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the
Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and physical improvement or
residential lots as one means of protecting and enhancing property values.
7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
The proposed garage would not cause and traffic hazards or congestion.
8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
The proposed garage will not necessitate any utilities above and beyond what is
already provided to the site.
Public Notice
As according to Code, Staff has notified property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel
regarding this request as well as a notice published in the New Brighton Bulletin. We have
not received any public feedback regarding the request.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission considered the request at their meeting on April 19. The
Commission determined that the request satisfied all code requirements yet recognized that
the proposal would necessitate a variance request as to the height of the proposed garage,
with such a hearing scheduled for May 3, 2006. Their resolution recommending approval
(attached for the Council’s review) included a provision which stated that the design as
proposed would necessitate a variance and that any approval of the CUP shall not be
inferred, construed or otherwise interpreted as an approval for any subsequent variance
request.
Summary
The applicants are seeking approval of a conditional use permit to permit a 1,062 square foot
garage. The garage would be 110 square feet larger than the maximum allowed without a
CUP yet 738 square feet smaller than the maximum with a CUP. The applicants are
proposing only the minimum area required to satisfy their needs. The Conditional Use Permit
may be considered separate and apart from the variance.
Balk Report
April 24, 2006
Page 4
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council open the public hearing, review the information relating to
the request, take testimony from staff, residents and the applicants, and if supportive of the
request, approve Resolution 6802 which has been prepared for the Council’s action. If
additional information is necessary before action can be taken, the Council may table the
request until such time that the information is provided. If the Council does not support
approval, a resolution of denial would need to be prepared with findings of fact to support the
denial.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Site Plans
4. Photographic Documentation
5. Resolution 830-06
6. Resolution 6802
Zoning Map
8495
Sunnyside
Road
Photographic Documentation
Looking west,
through the
vacant lot
toward the Balk
house at 8478
Long Lake
Road.
Looking south
through the
vacant lot
toward 8485
Sunnyside
Road
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 830-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AN OVER-SIZED GARAGE AT 8495 SUNNYSIDE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING CASE NO. CU06-002
WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Diane Balk, have requested approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a 1,062 square-foot attached garage associated with a
new home to be built at 8495 Sunnyside Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential, and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 1, Balk’s Addition
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess
of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800
square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Zoning Map
b. Planning Application
c. Proposed Floor Plan
c. Proposed Building Elevations
d. Photographic Documentation
e. Property Survey
f. Staff Report
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
makes the following findings of fact related to the request:
1. The proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters
1104 and 1106 of the Zoning Code.
2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the
Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of
residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of
housing units and residential property in general.
3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and
geography of the surrounding area involved in that the lot is rather large and
expanded garages are commonplace residential structural improvements which
help keep properties neat and orderly.
Resolution 830-06
Page 2
4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood in that the garage
would seamlessly blend into the design of the new, two-story home.
5. The proposed oversized garage would be adequately screened by the subject
home, mature trees and a garage on the adjacent property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following
stipulations:
1. The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional use permit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within sixty days of Council approval or this permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 3. The garage shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling.
4. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for
which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of
approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has
been granted by the City Council.
5. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit in no way infers approval of any
subsequent planning request. The height of the proposed garage shall satisfy
the minimum requirements unless a variance is approved to allow a greater
height.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 19th day of April, 2006.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 6802
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 1,062 SQUARE
FOOT OVER-SIZED GARAGE AT 8495 SUNNYSIDE ROAD;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. CU06-002
WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Diane Balk, have requested approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a 1,062 square-foot attached garage associated with a
new home to be built at 8495 Sunnyside Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential, and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 1, Balk’s Addition
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess
of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800
square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
a. Zoning Map
b. Planning Application
c. Proposed Floor Plan
d. Proposed Building Elevations
e. Photographic Documentation
f. Property Survey
g. Staff Report
h. Planning Commission resolution 830-06
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission reviewed this request at their
meeting on April 19, 2006 and recommended approval of said request to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council makes the
following findings of fact related to the request:
1. The proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters
1104 and 1106 of the Zoning Code.
2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that
the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of
residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness
of housing units and residential property in general.
Resolution 6802
Page 2
3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and
geography of the surrounding area involved in that the lot is rather large and
expanded garages are commonplace residential structural improvements
which help keep properties neat and orderly.
4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood in that the
garage would seamlessly blend into the design of the new, two-story home.
5. The proposed oversized garage would be adequately screened by the
subject home, mature trees and a garage on the adjacent property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council
approves the conditional use permit request for a 1,062 square foot garage with the
following stipulations:
1. The applicant shall arrange to record the City Council resolution approving the conditional use permit with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within sixty days of Council approval or this permit shall be considered null and void. 6. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 7. The garage shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling.
4. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall become null and void if the work for
which the CUP was granted is not completed within one year from the date of
approval unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has
been granted by the City Council.
5. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit in no way infers approval of any
subsequent planning request. The height of the proposed garage shall satisfy
the minimum requirements unless a variance is approved to allow a greater
height.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 24th day of April, 2006.
_____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 7B
Meeting Date: April 24, 2006
Type of Business: Action
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution 6794, Approving a Final
Plat and Development Agreement for the “Hidden
Hollow South” Major Subdivision;
Planning Case MA2006-001
Introduction:
Dan Saplis Inc., represented by Dan Saplis, has submitted an application for a major
subdivision of parcels on the north side of Woodale Drive, between the City’s western City
limits and the property addressed at 3033 Woodale. The proposed 2.71 acre subdivision would
create 6 buildable lots from the existing two lots. The Hidden Hollow South development will
be a welcome improvement to this site, and nice complement to the Hidden Hollow project to
the north.
Discussion:
On February 27, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6748, which approved the
preliminary plat of the Hidden Hollow major subdivision. All created parcels satisfy the
minimum lot requirements. With the exception of a few changes, the final plat is not much
different than the preliminary plat.
The resolution presented for Council approval which approves the final plat and Development
Agreement, stipulates that before City signatures are placed on the final plat, the developer
shall have paid the $20,160 park dedication fee. In addition, the resolution requires that
several other requirements be completed prior to the City signing the final plat. Resolution
6794, which grants final plat and development agreement approval, is attached for the
Council’s .
Joe Rhein, from Bonestoo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA), reviewed the final plat
and had comments regarding the enlargement of some easements within the Hidden Hollow
South lots, along with adjusting the roadway placement three feet to the east due to existing
manholes. These changes are reflected in the final plat that is attached to this report.
In response to the City Council’s suggestion to check if there were any trees on the site that
should be saved, Rick Wriskey, the City Forrester visited the site. The vegetation is located
mainly at the front and west side of the property. He concluded that there are not any trees
of value on the site and very few are larger sized trees.
Recommendation:
The Council can take one of the following actions related to the request:
1. Approve the final plat with the conditions noted. Resolution 6794 is attached if the
Council chooses this option.
2. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered
or if more discussion is needed, the Council can simply move to table the request until
such information has been provided.
3. Deny the final plat. If the Council selects this option, Staff must be directed to draft the
resolution with appropriate findings to support the denial.
Respectfully,
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Resolution 6794
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Grading Plan
4. Final Plat
RESOLUTION NO. 6794
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE “HIDDEN HOLLOW SOUTH” FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2006-001
WHEREAS, Dan Saplis, Inc. (“Dan Saplis”) has requested approval of a final plat and
the Development Agreement for the “Hidden Hollow South” major subdivision on land located
north of Woodale Drive, legally-described as follows:
KNOLLWOOD PARK, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Lots 47 and 48
WHEREAS, The above-described lands are zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential
and are designated as Single-Family Detached on the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, Dan Saplis has submitted a Final Plat, date stamped April 17, 2006, for
the major subdivision which creates 6 buildable lots, dedicating the proposed public street
right of way as “Pleasant View Drive”; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject
to a park dedication fee which would be equivalent to 10% of the assessed value of the
project area; and,
WHEREAS, the grading and drainage plan has been reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District has given conditional approval; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Zoning Map
4. Location Map
5. Site Plan, dated February 23, 2006
6. Grading Plan, dated April 17, 2006
7. Utility Plan, dated April 20, 2006
8. Planning Commission Resolution 825-06
9. Resolution 6748, Adopted February 27, 2006
10. Staff Report
11. Final Plat, dated April 17, 2006
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of
approval from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 825-06; and,
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2006, the Mounds View City Council held a duly
noticed public hearing regarding this subdivision and approved Resolution 6748 which
approved the “Hidden Hollow South” preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, the City Attorney has reviewed the final plat and finds it to be in
conformance with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code, subject to
the conditions and requirements contained in this Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the proposed final plat for
the “Hidden Hollow South” subdivision and finds it to be consistent with the preliminary plat
and in conformance with Resolution 6748 and with all applicable sections of the Mounds
View Municipal Code, subject to the conditions and requirements contained in this
Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, having
already approved the preliminary plat, approves the final plat and Development Agreement
for the “Hidden Hollow South” subdivision, subject to stipulations as follows:
1. Prior to the Final Plat execution, Dan Saplis shall pay a park dedication
fee in the amount of $20,160.00.
2. Dan Saplis shall enter into the Developers Agreement with the City and
arrange to record said document with Ramsey County.
3. Dan Saplis shall obtain final approval from Rice Creek Watershed District
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction activity
commences.
4. Any grading or alteration within a wetland will require a City Wetland
Alteration Permit. Grading or construction within 100’ of the wetland will
require a City Wetland Buffer Permit.
5. No grading or construction activity may proceed without all necessary
permits having been obtained.
6. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites
shall be located underground.
7. Necessary permits shall be obtained for any and all work occurring within
the City right of way.
8. City approval is contingent upon the Ramsey County Surveyor’s approval.
9. Dan Saplis shall successfully complete any and all requirements after
final review of the final plat by the City Attorney and City Engineer and
City Staff.
10. The approval contemplated herein is subject to the condition that Dan
Saplis must pay for all costs incurred by the City concerning this
subdivision, including preparation and review of the preliminary and final
plat by technical assistants and the costs incurred by the City Attorney,
city consultants, as well as other costs of a similar nature.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that approval of this final plat and
Development Agreement is subject to approval by and recordation with Ramsey County,
which shall occur within one hundred twenty (120) days of Council approval. Dan Saplis
shall furnish the City with a reproducible copy of the final plat showing evidence of the
recording; otherwise, the approval of the final plat shall be void.
Adopted this 24th day of April, 2006.
__________________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich,
City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT
by and between the
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, a Minnesota municipal corporation,
and
DAN SAPLIS, INC, a Minnesota Corporation
This document drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
2
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 24th day of April, 2006, by and between the CITY OF
MOUNDS VIEW, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and DAN SAPLIS, INC, a
Minnesota Corporation, (the “Developer”).
Recitals
A. The Developer is the fee owner of certain real estate located in Ramsey County,
Minnesota, legally described as
Knollwood Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Lot 47 & Lot 48
(hereinafter referred to as the “Property”).
B. The Developer shall construct on the Property improvements consistent with the final
site plans date-stamped April 4, 2006, and approved by the City Council on April 24, 2006.
C. The Developer has requested that the City approve a major subdivision for the
property.
D. As a prerequisite to the approval of the subdivision, the City Council requires the
Developer to agree to the construction of certain improvements pursuant to this Agreement for the
orderly development of the Property.
E. The Developer is financially responsible for the construction and installation costs of
certain utilities and roadway, as required by City ordinance, referred to as the “Improvements”.
Agreement
In consideration of each party’s promises as set forth in this Agreement, it is mutually agreed
as follows:
3
ARTICLE ONE
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
1.01. City Representations and Warranties. The City makes the following representations as the
basis for the undertakings on its part contained herein:
A. The City is a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota.
B. The City has the right, power and authority to execute, deliver and perform its
obligations under this Agreement. The City assures the Developer that the individuals who execute
this Agreement on behalf of the City are duly authorized to sign the same on behalf of the City and
to bind the City thereto.
1.02. Developer Representations and Warranties. The Developer makes the following
representations as the basis for the undertakings on its part contained herein:
A. The Developer is Dan Saplis, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation.
B. The Developer has the right, power and authority to execute, deliver and perform its
obligations under this Agreement. The Developer assures the City that the individuals who execute
this Agreement on behalf of the Developer are duly authorized to sign on behalf of the Developer
and to bind the Developer thereto.
C. The Developer is not in default under any lease, contract, or agreement to which it is
a party or by which it is bound which would affect its performance under this Agreement. The
Developer is not a party to or bound by any mortgage, lien, lease, agreement, instrument, order,
judgment, or decree which would prohibit the execution or performance of this Agreement by the
Developer or prohibit any of the transactions provided for in this Agreement.
D. The Developer has complied with and will continue to comply with all applicable
federal, state and local statutes, laws, ordinances and regulations including, without limitation, any
permits, licenses and applicable zoning, environmental, or other laws, ordinances, or regulations
affecting the Property or the Improvements. The Developer is not aware of any pending or
threatened claim of any such violation.
E. There is no suit, action, arbitration or legal, administrative or other proceeding or
governmental investigation pending or threatened against or affecting the Developer or Property.
The Developer is not in default with respect to any order, writ, injunction or decree of any federal,
state, local or foreign court, department, agency or instrumentality.
F. None of the representations and warranties made by the Developer or made in any
exhibit hereto or memorandum or writing furnished or to be furnished by the Developer or on its
behalf contains or will contain any untrue statement of material fact or omits any material fact, the
omission of which would be misleading.
G. The Developer has sufficient funds or has obtained a commitment for financing in an
amount adequate to finance construction of the Improvements.
4
ARTICLE TWO
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
2.01. Agreement to Construct Improvements. The Developer agrees to the construction of the
Improvements, including the grading, drainage, and other improvements required by City Ordinance
for development of the Property. The Improvements are more fully described in the site plans,
preliminary plat and specifications approved by the City, (the “Plans”). A final copy of the Plans
must be filed with the City prior to commencement of construction of the Improvements. All labor
and work performed by the Developer in connection with construction of the Improvements will be
done and performed in the best and most worker-like manner and in strict conformance with the
Plans. Any deviation from the Plans must be approved in writing by the City. Construction of the
Improvements shall be completed no later than one year from the issuance of the Building Permits
required herein. Prior to initiating construction of the improvements, the Developer shall hold a pre-
construction meeting with the City to review and resolve any issues involving the construction of the
Improvements.
2.02 Designation of Improvements. Improvements to be installed at Developer’s expense by the
Developer and to be owned and maintained by a property owner and/or property owners association
after development is completed, as hereinafter provided are hereinafter referred to as “Plan A
Improvements”. Improvements to be installed by the City at the Developer’s expense to be owned
and maintained by the City after development is completed are hereinafter referred to as “Plan B
Improvements”. The construction, installation, materials and equipment shall be in accordance with
the plans and specifications approved by the City. All of the work shall be under and subject to the
inspection and approval of the City and, where appropriate, any other governmental agency having
jurisdiction.
A. The Developer will construct and install at the Developer's expense the following Plan A
Improvements according to the following terms and conditions:
1. The Developer shall do all site grading including building sites, common greenway and
open spaces, storm water storage ponds and surface drainage ways, and all private
driveways including sodding of boulevards, all in accordance with the approved grading,
drainage, and site plan. A grading plan with maximum two (2) foot contours and cross
sections as necessary shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to
commencement of any site grading.
2. The Developer shall control soil erosion ensuring:
a. All development shall conform to the natural limitations presented by the
topography and soil of the subdivision in order to create the best potential for
preventing soil erosion. The developer shall submit an erosion control plan,
detailing all erosion control measures to be implemented during construction,
said plan shall be approved by the City prior to the commencement of site
grading or construction.
5
b. Erosion and siltation control measures shall be coordinated with the different
stages of development. Appropriate control measures as required by the City
shall be installed prior to development when necessary to control erosion.
c. Land shall be developed in increments of workable size such that adequate
erosion and siltation controls can be provide as construction progresses. The
smallest practical area of land shall be exposed at any one period of time.
d. Where the topsoil is removed, sufficient arable soil shall be set aside for
respreading over the developed area. The topsoil shall be restored to a depth of
at least four (4) inches and shall be of a quality at least equal to the soil quality
prior to development.
3. The Developer shall place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at all other
angle points on boundary lines. Iron monuments shall be placed after all street and lawn
grading has been completed in order to preserve the lot markers for future property
owners.
4. The Developer shall make all necessary adjustments to the curb stops to bring them flush
with the topsoil (after grading).
5. All yard areas must be sodded and one boulevard tree shall be planted on each single-
family residential lot with one additional tree per lot to be planted anywhere in front
yard. Each tree must be a minimum 2 ½ inch caliper. The Developer shall provide
evidence that the remaining trees are guaranteed for survivability, for one year from the
time of planting.
6. The Developer shall remove all dead and diseased trees and all other debris before
building permits will be issued, and before certificates of occupancy will be granted.
7. The Developer shall be responsible for street maintenance, including curbs, boulevards,
sod and street sweeping until the project is complete. All streets shall be maintained free
of debris and soil until the subdivision is completed. The City may inspect the site on a
periodic basis and determine whether it is necessary to take additional measures to clean
dirt and debris from the streets. After 24 hours verbal notice to the Developer, as listed
in this agreement, the City will complete or contract to complete the clean up at the
Developer’s expense. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to
prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If and when
the street becomes impassible, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. In the event
residences are occupied prior to completing streets, the developer shall maintain a
smooth driving surface and adequate drainage on all temporary streets. The Developer
shall be responsible for any damage to the street incurred during construction. The street
shall be repaired to City standards.
6
8. The Developer shall inspect and if necessary clean all catch basins, sumps, and ponding
areas of erosion/siltation and restore to the original condition at the end of construction
within this development. All silt fence and other erosion control should be removed
following the establishment of turf.
9. The Developer shall work with Xcel Energy and furnish street lights in accordance with
the Mounds View City Code Chapter 904, Street Lighting. Street lights in public rights-
of-way shall conform to City Code in all respects.
10. The Developer shall dedicate and survey the storm water infiltration area as required by
the City. The Developer shall be responsible for storm sewer cleaning and holding pond
dredging, as required, by the City prior to completion of the development.
11. The Developer shall be responsible for securing all necessary approvals and permits
from all appropriate Federal, State, Regional, and local jurisdictions prior to the
commencement of site grading or construction and prior to the City awarding
construction contracts for public utilities. Specifically, prior to obtaining any building
permits or grading permits as required under this Article or otherwise, the Developer
shall complete the following requirements:
a. Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) final approval and permit is
required.
b. The Developer shall provide the City with a $25,000 cash surety, letter of
credit or other form of financial guarantee, as described in section 2.04 to
guarantee the construction of the public improvements.
c. The Developer shall record with Ramsey County this Agreement and
Resolution 6794. The Developer shall provide proof of such recordation
before the Mayor and City Administrator affix their respective signatures
to the approved Final Plat.
d. The Developer shall submit the required park dedication payment of
$20,160 to the City before the Mayor and City Administrator affix their
respective signatures to the approved Final Plat.
12. Easements: Prior to approval of the final plat, and at anytime determined necessary by
the City therefore, the developer shall dedicate to the City, at no cost, all temporary
easements necessary for the construction of the Plan B improvements as determined by
the City. All such easements required by the City shall be provided on City easement
documents, containing such terms and conditions, as the City shall determine. All
permanent easements necessary for the installation and maintenance of Plan B
improvements shall be shown on the final plat and be granted to the City upon
recordation of said plat. After recordation of said plat, additional easements necessitated
by changes to utility or grading design shall be provided on an amended final plat and be
granted to the City upon recordation of said plat.
7
B. The City will construct and install at the Developer's expense the following Plan B
Improvements:
1. Sanitary Sewer
2. Water Main
3. Services
4. Storm Sewer
5. Street Improvements
2.03. Time for Developer's Performance: General Provision. The Developer agrees that it will
commence work on the Improvements no later than 30 days after the date of building permit
issuance and shall complete the Improvements no later than twelve (12) months after the date of
permit issuance. In the event of a “phased” construction schedule, each phase shall be subject to its
own timeline based upon the date of issuance of the building permit. The City may at its discretion
extend the timeline specified in this Section 2.03 upon receipt of written notice from the Developer
of the existence of causes which will delay the completion of the Improvements if such causes are
ones over which the Developer has no control and which could not have been reasonably foreseen
by the Developer. If an extension of the date of completion of the Improvements is granted by the
City, the Developer must continue the performance bond required by this Agreement to cover the
work during the extension of time.
2.04. Additional Work or Materials. Construction of the improvements shall be done by the
Developer. The Improvements shall be constructed at no expense to the City. The Developer shall
not do any work or furnish any materials for which reimbursement is expected from the City, unless
such work is first ordered and reimbursement is approved by the City. Any work or materials which
is done or furnished by the Developer without prior written order is furnished at the Developer’s
risk, cost and expense, and the Developer agrees that it will make no claim for compensation for
work or materials so done or furnished.
2.05. Financial Guarantee. Prior to commencement of construction of the Improvements, the
Developer agrees to furnish the City a performance bond, certified check, certificate of deposit,
irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150% of the City’s estimated costs for
the public Improvements (the “Financial Guarantee”) as determined by the Public Works Director.
The City’s estimated cost for public improvements are $16,666.00, which equals a financial
guarantee of $25,000. Upon failure of Developer to perform, the City may declare the Developer to
be in default under this Agreement and, upon failure of the Developer to cure the default within 30
days of written notice, may demand the Financial Guarantee be paid over to the City. From the
proceeds of the Financial Guarantee, the City shall be reimbursed for any attorneys’ fees,
engineering fees or other technical, administrative or professional assistance, and the remainder
thereof shall be used by the City to complete the Improvements. The Developer shall be liable to the
City in the event that the Financial Guarantee is inadequate to reimburse the City for its costs and
pay for the completion of the Improvements.
8
The bank and form of the letter of credit or other security shall be subject to the approval of the City.
The letter of credit shall be automatically renewable until the City releases the developer from
responsibility. The letter of credit shall secure compliance with the terms of this Agreement and all
obligations of the Developer under it. The city may draw down on the letter of credit without notice
if the obligations of the Developer have not been completed as required by this Agreement. In the
event of a default under this Agreement by the Developer, the City shall furnish the Developer with
written notice by certified mail of Developer’s default(s) within thirty (30) days of receiving notice
provided however if the Developer commences to cure within said thirty days, the time to cure shall
be extended for a reasonable time not to exceed 60 days; the City may draw on the letter of credit
provided funds are used to complete the Improvements. With City approval, the letter of credit may
be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid and Developer installed improvements
completed to the City’s requirements.
In the event the City does not recover its costs for completing the Improvements under the
provisions of this paragraph, as an additional remedy, City may, at its option, assess the Property in
the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and Developer hereby consents to the levy
of such special assessments without notice or hearing and waives its rights to appeal such
assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081, provided the amount levied, together
with the funds deposited with the City under this paragraph, does not exceed the expenses actually
incurred by the City in the completion of the Improvements.
2.06. Insurance. The Developer shall furnish proof of liability insurance in an amount of at least
$1,000,000, acceptable to the City, covering any public liability or property damage by reason of the
operation of the Developer's equipment or laborers in connection with the Improvements. Developer
agrees to keep the insurance in force at all times during construction of the Improvements and until
acceptance thereof by the City. The insurance must name the City as an additional insured and must
provide that the insurer will give the City not less than 30 days written notice prior to cancellation or
termination of the insurance policy.
2.07. Unsatisfactory Labor or Material. In the event that the City rejects as defective or unsuitable
any material or labor supplied by the Developer regarding the Improvements, the rejected material
must be removed and replaced with approved material and the rejected labor must be done again to
the specifications and approval of the City and at the sole cost and expense of the Developer.
2.08. Final Inspection/Acceptance. Upon completion of the Improvements, representatives of the
City and the Developer will make a final inspection of the work. Before final payment is made to
the contractor by the Developer, the City must be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in
accordance with the Plans, and the Developer’s engineer shall submit a written statement attesting to
the same. The City shall have no obligation to accept the Improvements if they are not consistent
with the Plans or not in compliance with all City ordinances and standards related thereto. Final
approval and acceptance of the Improvements shall be by a resolution duly adopted by the City
Council of the City.
9
2.09. Warranty on Property Work and Materials. The Developer warrants all work required to be
performed by it under this Agreement regarding the Improvements against defective material and
faulty workership for a period of one (1) year after completion and acceptance by the City, except
that the warranty period for the drainage and erosion control portions of the Improvements shall be
for two (2) years after completion and acceptance by the City. In addition, all trees, grass, sod or
other landscaping installed in connection with the Improvements are warranted to be alive, of good
quality, and disease free for a period of one (1) year after completion and acceptance by the City.
Any replacements of same shall be similarly warranted. The Developer shall be solely responsible
for all costs of performing repair and replacement work required by the City and shall perform such
work within thirty (30) days of receiving demand for such work from the City, weather permitting.
2.10. Records and Plans. The Developer agrees to provide the City with copies of all bids and
change orders, and the names of all suppliers and subcontractors, and other similar information
relating to the Improvements to be constructed by the Developer. Upon completion of the
Improvements, the Developer shall provide “as built” record plans. These will include two paper
copies, one Mylar copy, and an electronic copy.
2.11. Maintenance Bond. Upon completion of the Improvements and prior to acceptance thereof by
the City, the Developer shall furnish the City with a three-year maintenance bond to guarantee the
Improvements. The maintenance bond shall be in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the
financial guarantee.
2.12. Indemnification. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the City, its
officers, agents, and employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the
Developer, the Developer’s contractor or subcontractors, material suppliers, laborers, or to any other
person or persons for any claim, demand, damage, action, or cause of action of any kind or character
arising out of or by reason of the execution of this Agreement or the performance and completion of
the Improvements. The Developer agrees to hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees,
harmless from all such claims, demands, damages, and causes of action and the costs, disbursements,
and expenses of defending the same, including but not limited to, attorneys’ fees, consulting
engineering services, and other technical, administrative or professional assistance.
2.13. Compliance with Existing Laws. The Developer warrants that all work performed pursuant to
this Agreement shall be in compliance with existing laws, ordinances, pertinent regulations,
standards, specifications of regulatory agencies and specifications of the City, and is subject to
approval of the City’s Building Official.
2.13. City’s Access. The Developer hereby grants the city, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a non-revocable license to enter the Property to perform all work and inspections deemed
appropriate by the City related to said development.
10
ARTICLE THREE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
3.01. Property Monumentation. The Developer agrees to provide sufficient property
monumentation (temporary), installed by or under the direction of a registered land surveyor, prior
to and during the course of the Improvements to ensure proper layout. The Developer further agrees
to install all subdivision monumentation (permanent) within one year from recording of the plat, or
the monumentation shall be installed on a per-lot basis at the time a building permit for the subject
lot is issued, whichever occurs first. At the end of the one-year period, the Developer shall submit to
the City written verification by a registered land surveyor that the required monuments have been
installed throughout the plat.
3.02. Payment of City Costs. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City its actual costs regarding
preparing and administering this Agreement, processing the plat and preparing and reviewing an
environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) and environmental impact statement (EIS), if required.
The costs to be paid shall include, but not be limited to, attorneys’ fees, engineering fees, and other
technical or professional assistance, including the work of the City staff.
3.03. Attorney’s Fees. The Developer agrees to pay the City’s costs and expenses, including
attorneys’ fees, in the event a suit or action is brought by the City against the Developer to enforce
the terms of this Agreement, and the City is the prevailing party in the suit or action brought by the
City against the Developer.
3.04. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, any attached exhibits and any addenda or amendments
signed by the parties shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and Developer, and
supersedes any other written or oral agreements between City and Developer. This Agreement can
only be modified in writing signed by City and Developer. The parties acknowledge that
amendments or modifications to this Agreement that, in the opinion of the City’s Director of
Community Development, substantially deviate from the approved PUD Narrative Document or the
overall intent or design of the PUD, shall require approval by the City Council.
3.05. Assignment. The Developer may not assign any of its obligations under this Agreement with-
out the prior written consent of the City.
3.06. Agreement to Run with Land. This Agreement shall be recorded among the land records of
Ramsey County, Minnesota. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with the Property and be
binding upon the Developer and its assigns or successors in interest. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
no conveyance of the Property or any part thereof shall relieve the Developer of its liability for full
performance of this Agreement unless the City expressly so releases the Developer in writing.
3.07. Representatives Not Individually Liable. No officer, agent or employee of the City shall be
personally liable to the Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach
by the City on any obligation or term of this Agreement.
11
3.08. Notices and Demands. Any notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by
either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally:
(a) as to the Developer: Dan Saplis
Dan Saplis, Inc.
13637 Pierce Street
Ham Lake, MN 55304
(b) as to the City: City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112-1499
Attn: City Administrator
or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to time,
designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this section 3.08.
3.09. Disclaimer of Relationships. The Developer acknowledges that nothing contained in this
Agreement nor any act by the City or the Developer shall be deemed or construed by the Developer
or by any third person to create any relationship of third-party beneficiary, principal and agent,
limited or general partner, or joint venture between the City and the Developer.
3.10. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
shall constitute one and the same instrument.
3.11. Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the state of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this
Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and all parties to this
Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or
otherwise.
3.12. Indemnification. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the City, its
officers, agents, and employees shall not be liable or responsible in any manner to the Developer,
Developer’s successors or assigns, the Developer’s contractor or subcontractors, material suppliers,
laborers, or to any other person or persons for any claim, demand, damage, or cause of action of any
kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this Agreement or the performance
and completion of the Improvements. The Developer, and the Developer’s successors or assigns,
agree to protect, defend and save the City, and its officers, agents, and employees, harmless from all
such claims, demands, damages, and causes of action and the costs, disbursements, and expenses of
defending the same, including but not limited to, attorneys fees, consulting engineering services, and
other technical, administrative or professional assistance. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute
a waiver or limitation of any immunity or limitation on liability to which the City is entitled under
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or otherwise.
12
3.13. Occupancy Permits. No occupancy permits shall be issued until:
A. The site grading is completed and approved by the City.
B. All public utilities are tested, approved by the City, and in service.
C. All building permit fees are paid in full.
The Developer, in executing this Agreement, assumes all liability and costs for damage or delays,
incurred by the City, in the construction of public improvements, caused by the Developer, its
employees, contractors, subcontractors, materialmen or agents. No occupancy permits shall be
issued until the utilities are in and approved by the City, unless otherwise authorized in writing by
the City.
13
IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the
date and year written above.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
By _________________________________
Mayor
By _________________________________
City Clerk
DAN SAPLIS, INC.
_________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2006, by Rob Marty and Kurt Ulrich, the Mayor and City Clerk/Administrator,
respectively, of the City of Mounds View, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the
corporation.
______________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF _________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2006, by Dan Saplis.
______________________________
Notary Public
This document drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
Item No: 07C
Meeting Date: April 24, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter Relating to Taxation and Finances
Introduction:
On April 18, 2006, the Mounds View Charter Commission adopted Resolution 2006-05 which put forward
suggested amendments to the Charter in Chapter 7 relating to “Taxation and Finances.” These
amendments were discussed at the April 18, 2006 Special Work Session between the Mounds View
Charter Commission and the Mounds View City Council.
Discussion:
The intent of the Charter Commission with this resolution is to clarify language in the charter relating to
the Taxation and Finances in Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter. Consistent with state law, the
ordinance would go into effect 90 days after unanimously being adopted by the City Council. The
ordinance requires a public hearing, which will be scheduled for Monday, May 8, 2006 at 7:10pm.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council introduce and accept the first reading of Ordinance 772. Also
attached is the summary of the Ordinance. If this Ordinance were to be approved at the May 8, 2006 City
Council Meeting, then only the summary would be published.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
ORDINANCE NO. 772
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING CHAPTER 7
OF THE CHARTER RELATING TO
TAXATION AND FINANCES
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of
Mounds View City Charter Commission, has hereby determined that Chapter 7 of the Charter of the City
of Mounds View relating to “Taxation and Finances” be amended by the addition of the bold and
underlined language and by the deletion of the bold and stricken as follows:
CHAPTER 7
TAXATION AND FINANCES
Section 7.01 Council to Control Finances. (no changes)
Section 7.02 Fiscal Year. (no changes)
Section 7.03 System of Taxation. (no changes)
Section 7.04. Submission of Budget.
Subdivision 1. Annually, on or before the 15th calendar day of September of each year
or as specified by MN Statute 275.065, as amended, the Clerk-Administrator shall submit to the
Council the budget estimates for funds levying property taxes for the ensuing fiscal year and an
accompanying summary message in accordance with a budget calendar to be established by
resolution.
The total proposed operating budget to be provided from the property tax shall not exceed
the amounts authorized by state law and this Charter. Consistent with these provisions, the
budget shall contain such information and be in the form prescribed by the City Council. The
final budget shall provide a complete financial plan for all City funds and activities for the ensuing
fiscal year and except as required by state law or this Charter, shall be in such form as the
Council may require. It shall include a summary and show in detail all estimated income and all
proposed expenditures, including debt service and comparative figures for the current fiscal year,
actual and estimated, and the preceding year. In addition to showing proposed expenditures for
current operations, it shall show proposed capital expenditures to be made during the year and
the proposed method of financing each such capital expenditure. The total proposed operating
budget to be provided from the property tax shall not exceed the amounts authorized by state law
and this Charter. Consistent with these provisions, the budget shall contain such information and
be in the form prescribed by ordinance and by state law.
Subdivision 2. For each utility enterprise operated by the City, its proposed and final
budgets shall show income, expenditure, and anticipated net surplus or deficit and with the
proposed disposition method. of its disposition; and subsidiary budgets for each such utility giving
income and expenditure information shall be included or attached as appendices.
Subdivision 3. The Clerk-Administrator's message shall explain the budget, both in fiscal
terms and in terms of the work programs, linking programs to goals of the City and community
priorities. It shall outline the proposed financial policies and programs of the City for the
ensuing fiscal year and the impact of those policies and programs compared to the City's
current five-year plan, as adopted by the City Council. It shall describe the important features
of the budget, indicate any major changes in financial policies, expenditures, and revenues
together with the reasons for such changes. It shall summarize the City's debt position for
each fund, including factors affecting the ability to raise resources through debt issues, and
include such other material as the Clerk-Administrator deems desirable or as requested by the
City Council
Subdivision 4. Budget Planning Guideline
The purpose of this section is to provide the public with a general time table for
the annual budget process. The dates are guidelines and subject to change by the City
Council and MN Statute 275.065, as amended.
Activity Estimated Time Period
Five-Year Plan: Development Jan. 1 to May 1
Five-Year Plan: Public Review May 1 to May 20
Five-Year Plan: Council Approval May 20 to June 1
Annual Budget Calendar: Adopted by Council June 1
Five-Year Plan: Published to Public June 1 to Aug. 1
Annual Budget: Public Input to Department June 1 to Sept 1
Annual Budget: Clerk-Administrator Develops
Summary and Estimate Proposal for Council Aug. 1 to Sept. 15
Annual Budget: Estimates Submitted to Council Sept. 15
Annual Budget: Proposal and Tax Levy Estimates
Council Adoption Sept. 15
Annual Budget: Council Review and Amend Sept. 15 to Nov 23
Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Proposal
Published to Public Sept. 15 to Dec. 1
Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Public Review Sept. 15 to Dec. 20
Annual Budget: Public Hearing Advertised Nov.
Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Initial Public Hearing Nov. 29 to Dec. 20
Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Council Adoption Dec. 5 to Dec. 20
Annual Budget and Tax Levy: Final Council
Budget Summary Published to Public Dec. 20 to Feb. 1
Section 7.05 Long TermFive-Year Financial Plan.
Subdivision 1. The City Council shall have prepared a long-termfive-year financial plan
commencing in thewith the ensuing calendar year. 1980. The City Council shall hold a public
hearing on the long-termfive-year financial plan and adopt it by ordinance, with or without
amendment, by June 1st of each year. The financial plan shall consist of at least the following
fourthree elements as specified in subdivisions 2-54 which follow:
Subdivision 2. The Public Service Program. The program shall be a continuing five-year
plan for all public services, estimating future needs for the public health, safety and welfare of the
City. It shall measure the objectives and needs for each City department, the standard of
services desired, and the impact of each such service on the annual operating budget.
Subdivision 32. The Capital Improvement PlanProgram. This program shall consist of
projects and facilities that are or will be needed by the City in carrying out the anticipated program
of public services. It shall includecontain a list of all capital improvements proposed to be
undertaken during the next five fiscal years, with appropriate supporting information as to the
necessity for such improvements; cost estimate, method of financing and recommended time
schedule for each such improvement; and the estimated annual cost of operating and maintaining
the facilities to be constructed or acquired. This information shall be revised and extended each
year for capital improvements still pending or in process.
Subdivision 43. A -Long-TermFive-Year Revenue Programand Expense Estimate . This
program shall consist ofcontain a tentative revenue policy whichthat describes long-termfive-
year plans for financing public services and capital improvements. It shall measure the
objectives and needs for each City department, the standard of services desired, and the impact
of each such service on the annual operating budget.
Subdivision 54. The Capital Budget. This program shall be a summary on the basis of a
five-year period of the capital or money requirements for the above described programs. It shall
list a priority for each anticipated investment in community facilities and balance this with a
consideration of the availability of necessary revenues.
Subdivision 65. A summary of the long-termfive year financial plan shall be published
before August 1st each year in the City newsletter annually.official City newspaper, the City
newsletter, and, if available, the City web site.
Section 7.06. Council Action on Budget.
Subdivision 1. The Council shall annually adopt a budget calendar by June 1st. The
calendar will establish the time line for development and submission of the budget and allow
for public review and comment in accordance with this Charter, the City Council, and MN
Statute 275.065, as amended. The budget shall be considered at the first regular monthly
meeting of the Council in September and at subsequent meetings until a budget is adopted for
the ensuing year. The budget calendar will provide a 30-day period for public review and input
to the annual budget prior to final approval by the City Council. The meetings shall be so
conducted as to give interested citizens a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Council may
revise the proposed budget but no amendment to the budget shall increase the authorized
expenditures to an amount greater than the sum of estimated income. and reserves. The Council
shall adopt the budget by a resolution that shall set forth the total for each budgeted fund and
each department. with such segregation as to objects and purposes of expenditures The budget
shall indicate the sums to be raised and from what sources and the sums to be spent and for
what purpose as the Council deems necessary for purposes of establishing the budget control.
The Council shall also adopt a resolution levying the amount of taxes provided in the budget, and
the Clerk-Administrator shall certify the tax resolution to the County Auditor in accordance with
state law. Adoption of the budget resolution shall constitute appropriations at the beginning of the
fiscal year of the sums fixed in the resolution of the several purposes named.
Subdivision 2. At least two weeksAs specified by MN Statute 275.065, as amended,
before the budget is adopted for the ensuing fiscal year, a summary shall be given a public
hearing notice and summary of the proposed budget will be published in the official City
newspaper, the City Newsletter, and, if available, the City web sitein draft form, of the budget.
Such summary shall be set forth in language designed toshould be readily understoodandable by
the layperson, and shallshould provide appropriate supporting information as to the necessity for
any increase in the budget over the total for the current fiscal year. , but fFailure to provide the
specified summary will not invalidate the budget.
The final budget will be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes on Truth in
Taxation or no later than 60 days after adoption by the Council in the official City newspaper,
the City newsletter and, if available, the City web site.
Subdivision 3. If the Council fails to adopt the budget by the beginning of the next fiscal
year, the preceding months fiscal year budget shall go into effect for up to thirty-one (31) days
or until the Council adopts a budget.
Section 7.07. Enforcement of the Budget.
The Clerk-Administrator may designate department heads or other staff who may assist
with each fund or department in the annual budget. It shall be the duty of the Clerk-Administrator
to strictly enforce the detail provisions of the budget. The City Council shall strictly enforce
strictly the provisions of the budget. ItThe City Council shall not authorize any payment or the
incurring of any obligation by the City, unless an appropriation has been made in the budget
resolution, and there is a sufficient unexpended balance after deducting the total past
expenditures and encumbrances against the appropriation. No officer or employee of the City
shall place any order or make any purchase except for a purpose and tounless the amount is
authorized in the budget resolution. and in compliance with; the purchasing policies of the City
as established by the City Council, the City Charter, the City Code, and Minnesota Statutes.
Any obligation incurred by any person in the employ of the City for any purpose not authorized in
the budget resolution, or for any amount in excess of the amount authorized, shall be a personal
obligation upon the person incurring the obligation. No check shall be issued or transfer made to
any account other than one owned by the City until the claim to which it relates has been
supported by an itemized bill, payroll, or time sheet or other document approved and signed by
the responsible City officer who vouches for its correctness and reasonableness.
Section 7.08. Alterations in the Budget.
After the budget resolution has been adopted, the Council may amend the budget by
resolution, but shall not increase the amounts fixed in the resolution beyond the sum of estimated
receipts and reserves, except to the extent that actual receipts exceed the estimate or to
implement Section 7.12 herein. At anytime the Council may, by resolution approved by a
majority of its members, reduce the sums appropriated for any purpose by the budget resolution,
to increase reserves or authorize the transfer of sums from unencumbered balances of
appropriations in the budget. resolution to other purposes.
Section 7.09. Funds. (no changes)
Section 7.10. City Indebtedness.
Subdivision 1. Except as provided in Sections 7.11 and 7.12, no obligation shall be
issued to pay current expenses, but the Council may issue and sell obligations for any other
municipal purpose in accordance with state law and within the limitations prescribed by law.
Except in the case of obligations for which an election is not required by this Chapter or by state
law, no such obligations shall be issued and sold without the approval of the majority of the voters
voting on the question at a general or special election.
Subdivision 2. A description of each such proposed issue shall be published in the official
City newspaper, the City Newsletter, and, if available, the City web site, but failure to give such
description, or any defect in the description, shall not invalidate the issue.
Section 7.11. 1. Anticipation Certificates.
At anytime after January 1, in accordance with MN Statute 412.261, as amended, with the
following restrictions; the Council may issue certificates of indebtedness in anticipation of state
and federal aids and the collection of taxes levied the previous year for any fund and not yet
collected. The total amount of certificates issued against any fund for any year together with
interest thereon until maturity shall not exceed 90% of the total state and federal aids and current
taxes due to the fund and uncollected at the time of issuance. Such certificates shall be issued
on such terms and conditions as the Council may determine, but they shall become due not later
than April 1August 1st of the year following their issuance. The proceeds of the tax levied and
such state or federal aids as the governing body may have allocated for the fund against which
tax anticipation certificates are issued, and the full faith and credit of the City shall be irrevocably
pledged for the redemption of the certificates.
Section 7.12. Emergency Debt Certificates.
Subdivision 1. If in any year the receipt from taxes, availability of reserves, or other
sources should for some unforeseen cause become insufficient for the ordinary expenses of the
City, or if any calamity or other public emergency necessitates the making of extraordinary
expenditures, the Council may by ordinance issue, on such terms and in such manner as the
Council determines, emergency debt certificates not to exceed 10% of the total City budget and
to run not to exceed three years. axA tTaxes sufficient to pay principal and interest on such
certificates with the margin required by law shall be levied as required by law. The ordinance
authorizing the issue of such emergency debt certificates shall state the nature of the emergency
and be approved by at least three members of the Council. It may be passed as an emergency
ordinance.
Subdivision 2. A description of each such proposed certificate shall be published in the
City Newsletter, but failure to give such description, or any defect in the description, shall not
invalidate the certificate.
SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 90 days after its publication in the official City newspaper.
INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th day of
April, 2006.
PUBLIC HEARING, SECOND READING AND ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View this _____th day of May, 2006.
______________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
Scott Riggs, City Attorney
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 772
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY AMENDING CHAPTER 7
OF THE CHARTER RELATING TO
TAXATION AND FINANCES
On April 24, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance amending Chapter 7 of the
Charter relating to Taxation and Finances The full and complete text of this ordinance is on file at the
office of the Clerk Administrator and is posted in its entirety on the City’s website, located at
www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/772.pdf.
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
Item No. 7D
Meeting Date: April 10, 2006
Type of Business: Council Business
City Administrator Review ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 771 Amending
Chapters 502 and 503 of the City Code Relating to Liquor
Licenses
Discussion:
Based on direction provided at the December 6, 2005 and April 3, 2006 Council
worksessions, staff has prepared an ordinance that amends the liquor licensing provisions
of the City Code in Chapters 502 and 503. The amendments change the code to require
that a public hearing be conducted for every new, transferred or renewed license. This
change is recommended based on feedback from residents who would have wanted to
provide input during license renewals however were not notified of the public hearing. The
Council agreed and indicated that the Code should be amended accordingly.
Also based on direction provided at the same worksessions, the other change
contemplated by Ordinance 771 would be to allow our liquor license facilities to offer
outdoor seating in association with their establishment. The Code would need to be
amended to allow for the outdoor sale and consumption of alcohol in those establishments.
The new language states the following:
Outdoor Consumption Endorsement. A special endorsement may be issued by
the City to the holder of a regular on-sale liquor or on-sale wine license to allow
sales and consumption of liquor or wine outdoors when the outside service area
is immediately adjacent to and contiguous with the licensed premises. The
licensee shall make application for the special endorsement to the City and
provide site plans which illustrate the proposed outdoor service area. The
special endorsement may be issued by the City Council to the licensee by
resolution after a public hearing on the special endorsement is held. The
designated outside service area shall not reduce the number of off-street parking
spaces which would be required if the licensed premises together with the
outside service area were to be newly constructed in conformity with the City’s
zoning code. The City may also require improvements to the outside service
area prior to issuing the special endorsement, including but not limited to, safety
barriers or other enclosures to be placed around the perimeter of the outside
service area in order to protect patrons from any hazards, including vehicular
traffic.
Ordinance 771
Page 2
The outdoor consumption endorsement would be considered by the City Council with any
new, transferred or renewed license. The applicant would submit along with the other
required information a site plan which would indicate the outdoor area to be utilized for
dining or serving alcohol.
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed changes and supports the ordinance as
presented.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council review the amendments to Chapters 502 and 503
relating to public hearings and outdoor consumption and approve the second reading and
adoption of Ordinance 771.
Respectfully submitted,
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Attachment:
1. Ordinance 771
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 771
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 502 and 503 RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSES
On April 24, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which amends
Chapters 502 and 503 of the City Code relating to Liquor Licenses. The changes to the City’s
Liquor License regulations were adopted to require that all liquor license transfers or renewals
would be subject to a public hearing with notice published ten days in advance of the hearing.
The other change is to allow outdoor consumption and sale of alcohol in association with a
licensed premises. Such outdoor area would be immediately adjacent to the premises and
would not take up any required parking spaces among other design and safety requirements.
The full and complete text of this ordinance along with a supplemental map is on file at the
office of the Clerk Administrator and is posted in its entirety on the City’s website, located at
www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/771.pdf.
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 771
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 500, CHAPTERS 501 AND 502 OF THE MOUNDS
VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 502.03, 502.08, 502.11, 503.03
AND 503.08 RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSING
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 502.03 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “License
Classifications” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined:
502.03: LICENSE CLASSIFICATIONS:
Subd. 8. Outdoor Consumption Endorsement. A special endorsement may be
issued by the City to the holder of a regular on-sale liquor or on-sale wine license to
allow sales and consumption of liquor or wine outdoors when the outside service
area is immediately adjacent to and contiguous with the licensed premises. The
licensee shall make application for the special endorsement to the City and provide
site plans which illustrate the proposed outdoor service area. The special
endorsement may be issued by the City Council to the licensee by resolution after a
public hearing on the special endorsement is held. The designated outside service
area shall not reduce the number of off-street parking spaces which would be
required if the licensed premises together with the outside service area were to be
newly constructed in conformity with the City’s zoning code. The City may also
require improvements to the outside service area prior to issuing the special
endorsement, including but not limited to, safety barriers or other enclosures to be
placed around the perimeter of the outside service area in order to protect patrons
from any hazards, including vehicular traffic.
SECTION 2. Section 502.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “License
Hearing” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and the deletion of the
stricken language as follows:
502.08: LICENSE HEARING:
No issuance of a new license, transfer of an existing license, renewal of an existing
license, issuance of temporary special event or banquet licenses, or special outdoor
consumption endorsements for the sale of intoxicating liquor on-sale or off-sale, club,
Sunday sales or on-sale wine shall be hereafter granted by the Council until a public
hearing has been conducted by the Council after published notice in the official
newspaper at least ten (10) days in advance of the hearing. Renewals of existing
licenses issued under this Chapter and the issuance of temporary intoxicating special
event and banquet licenses as defined in Section 502.03, subdivisions 6 and 7 of this
Chapter may be granted by the Council after a public hearing without the requirement
of a prior published notice.
Ordinance 771
Page 2
SECTION 3. Section 502.11 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Conduct of
Business, Conditions of License” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined:
502.11: CONDUCT OF BUSINESS; CONDITIONS OF LICENSE:
Subd. 8. Consumption in Parking Lots: No person may loiter or consume or have in
their possession any bottle or receptacle containing intoxicating or nonintoxicating
liquors on any premises licensed for the on-sale or off-sale of intoxicating liquors while
outside of the building or structure located on the licensed premises, including but not
limited to parking lots, driveways and landscaped areas, as well as steps,
passageways or vestibules located outside of said building or structure, except as
provided by Sections 502.03, Subdivision 8 and 503.03, Subdivision 1 (c). Any person
in violation of this subdivision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
SECTION 4. Section 503.03, Subd. 1 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“License Classifications” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined:
503.03: LICENSE CLASSIFICATIONS:
c. Outdoor Consumption Endorsement. A special endorsement may be issued by
the City to the holder of an on-sale license to allow sales and consumption of 3.2
percent malt liquor outdoors when the outside service area is immediately adjacent
to and contiguous with the licensed premises. The licensee shall make application
for the special endorsement to the City and pay the annual fee for said
endorsement. The special endorsement may be issued by the City Council to the
licensee by resolution after a public hearing on the special endorsement is held.
The designated outdoor service area shall not reduce the number of off-street
parking spaces which would be required if the licensed premises together with the
outside service area were to be newly constructed in conformity with the City’s
zoning code. The City may also require improvements to the outside service area
prior to issuing the special endorsement, including, but not limited to, safety barriers
or other enclosures to be placed around the perimeter of the outside service area in
order to protect patrons from any hazards, including vehicular traffic.
SECTION 5. Section 503.08 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Investigation
of Application; Hearing; Issuance or Denial” is hereby amended with the proposed additions
underlined and the deletion of the stricken language as follows:
503.08: INVESTIGATION OF APPLICATION; HEARING; ISSUANCE OR
DENIAL.
The Council shall investigate all facts set out in the application. Opportunity shall be
given to any person to be heard for or against the granting of the license. No issuance
of a new license, transfer of an existing license, renewal of an existing license,
issuance of temporary special event or festival in the park license or special outdoor
Ordinance 771
Page 3
consumption endorsement for the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor on-sale or off-sale
shall be hereafter granted by the Council until a public hearing has been conducted by
the Council after published notice in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days in
advance of the hearing. After such investigation and hearing, the Council shall grant or
refuse the application, in its discretion.
SECTION 6. This ordinance is effective 30 days after its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 10th day of April, 2006.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th day of April, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Item No: 7E
Meeting Date: April 24, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review : ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance
Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code
Relating to Signs and Billboards
Discussion:
At the Council meeting on March 27, 2006, the Council gave second reading to the
ordinance amending sections of the Sign Code. Staff recommended two revisions to the
ordinance as it was presented, the first being elimination of billboard sites along the north
side of County Road 10 south of Woodale due to potential conflict with the City’s own
Gateway / entryway sign, the second being changing the max height to 45 feet for ONLY
those signs along 35W, US 10 and Old Highway 8.
Much discussion ensued regarding the two proposed revisions. Ultimately the Council
amended the first revision such that both sides of County Road 10 south of Woodale were
eliminated. Billboards would only be allowed fronting Old Highway 8, US 10 and 35W. The
billboard height allowance was discussed and ultimately the proposed revision stood as
provided by staff. Because of the amendment to the first revision, the second revision
relating to sign height on County 10 no longer applied as none were allowed on County 10.
Reconsideration:
Later in the Council meeting after the ordinance had been adopted, Staff requested that the
Council reconsider its adoption of the ordinance and table action to give staff time to draft
supplemental language regarding the maximum number of billboards in the community. The
City Attorney concurred with the recommendation to reconsider and to table the ordinance
and indicated he would work with staff to draft language appropriate to address the identified
issue. The Council reconsidered the ordinance and tabled action until April 10.
The language suggested by staff and reviewed by the City Attorney is as follows:
h. Maximum Number. The maximum number of billboards that may be located within
the City at any one time shall be limited to ten (10). Any billboard legally existing at the
time that this ordinance is adopted may be removed and relocated consistent with the
provisions of this Code. Any billboard in the process of being relocated at the time that
this ordinance is adopted shall be counted among the maximum number allowed and
shall be allowed to complete its relocation.
The draft language was reviewed by the City Council on April 3, 2006 and was deemed
appropriate for inclusion in the ordinance.
Sign Code Ordinance Report
April 24, 2006
Page 2
Subsequent to the April 3rd meeting, representatives from Clear Channel communicated
concerns to staff regarding the elimination of the County Road 10 locations as well as three
other provisions of the ordinance relating to the duration of the IUP for the relocated signs,
the definition of “expansion” and wording relating to non-conforming uses. The City Attorney
reviewed the concerns raised by Clear Channel and find that the ordinance should be
revised relating to the duration of the IUP for the relocated signs, as the language in the
earlier version of the ordinance was not completely consistent with the agreement between
the City and Clear Channel. As to the other concerns, the Attorney finds that the ordinance
should stand as written.
The proposed revision to Section 1008.10, Subd 6 relating to the duration of the IUP is as
follows:
a. Interim Use Permit: An interim use permit (IUP) must be obtained in accordance
with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit
procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code. Any IUP issued for an interim use billboard shall automatically expire on July
1, 2037, or earlier if so indicated in the resolution approving the IUP. An IUP shall
be null-and-void if the applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of
Minnesota.
Finally, the issue of whether or not to allow billboards on County Road 10 will likely need to
be re-addressed, as representatives from Clear Channel, Medtronic and individual property
owners may request such action.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Map Illustrating Existing and Proposed Billboard “Zones”
2. Ordinance 769
` Billboard Overlay Zones – Existing and Proposed
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 769
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 RELATING TO SIGNS
On April 10, 2006, the Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance which amends
Chapter 1008 of the City Code relating to Billboards and Signs. Many of the changes to the
City’s sign code were adopted to make the regulations more consistent with First
Amendment rights and free speech issues in light of recent court cases and local legal
challenges. These changes generally eliminated language which regulated signs on the
basis of their content. The end result of the changes is that the sign code has been clarified
to regulate the sign itself rather than the messages (the “content”) that appear on said signs.
The other adopted changes allow for greater flexibility in relocating billboards within the
community. The Code was amended to permit billboards in the B2, B3, I1, PUD and CRP
zoning districts along 35W, US Highway 10 and Old Highway 8.
The full and complete text of this ordinance along with a supplemental map is on file at the
office of the Clerk Administrator and is posted in its entirety on the City’s website, located at
www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/769.pdf.
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 769
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 1008 RELATING TO SIGNS
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 1008.01 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Purpose of
Sign Regulation” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
h. commercial signs are generally incompatible with residential uses and should be
strictly limited in residential zoning districts; and
i. the right to express noncommercial opinions in any zoning district must be protected,
subject to reasonable restrictions on size, height, location and number.
SECTION 2. Section 1008.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to “Definitions”
is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out:
INCIDENTAL SIGN: A sign, generally informational, that has a purpose secondary to the
uses on the property on which it is located. Such signs might include, but are not limited
to, “No Parking,” "Entrance," "Exit," "ATM," or "Payphone." No sign with a commercial
message legible off the premises shall be considered incidental.
NONCONFORMING SIGN: Any sign that does not comply with the requirements of this
Section is considered nonconforming. A sign which was erected legally but does not
comply with subsequently enacted sign restrictions or regulations is considered legal
nonconforming.
TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign displaying a commercial or non-commercial message
erected or maintained for a limited specific period of time and not of a permanent
nature. Such signs shall include banners, inflatable devices, sandwich boards, portable
changeable copy signs or any other device intended to attract attention.
Ordinance 769
Page 2
SECTION 3. Section 1008.03, Subd f of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Sign Permit Exemptions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
f. National, state, regional, local, non-commercial institutional or cultural flags.
SECTION 4. Section 1008.05, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Sign Permit Fees” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
Subd. 2. Waiver: The Council, if so requested in writing, may waive the fee required
by this Section where the signs are to be erected by civic or religious organizations.
Temporary sign permit fees shall be waived for civic or religious organizations.
SECTION 5. Section 1008.07, Subd 5 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“License Provisions” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
Subd. 5. Revocation: A license may be terminated and renewal thereof may be
denied by the Council for violations of this Chapter or other applicable ordinances.
cause after notice to the licensee and reasonable opportunity for the licensee to be heard
on the question of such termination. Cause shall include any repeated or persistent
violation of the requirements of this Chapter.
SECTION 6. Section 1008.09, Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Signs allowed by District, is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
Sign Type R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 PF CRP PUD
Ground No No 32 32 32
32 100
200 200 200 200 100 100 *
Wall No No 64 64 No 100 100 100 100 100 100 *
Projection No No No No No 8 24 24 24 24 No *
Window No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No *
Identification 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 4 4 *
Temporary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Real Estate 10 10 32 32 10 32 32 32 32 32 64 32 32 32
Home
Occupation 1 1 No No 1 No No No No No No No No No
Campaign Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Billboards No No No No No No No No
700
No
700 No No
700 700 700 700
Directional No No 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8
Construction 8 8 8 8 8 8 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Incidental 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ordinance 769
Page 3
SECTION 7. Section 1008.09, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Ground Sign Height by District, is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined
and deletions struck out:
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 PF CRP PUD
(1) (1) 8 8 8 8 20 20 (3) 35 (3) 35 35 (3) 35 35 (3) (2), (3)
(1) No ground sign, other than home occupation, campaign, real estate, incidental and
temporary signs shall be allowed in these districts.
(2) Signage requirements within a PUD shall be as indicated by the PUD Narrative
document. If no such document exists, signage shall be as allowed for a B-3 zoning
District.
(3) Maximum billboard sign height is 45 feet. See also Section 1008.10 Subd 6 of
this Code.
SECTION 8. Section 1008.10, Subd 1f of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Ground Sign Requirements is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
f. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subd 6 of this Section, No more than one (1)
pole or pylon sign shall be allowed per lot. However, the ground sign area allowance
may be divided between one (1) pole or pylon sign and a monument sign or between
multiple monument signs, subject to the requirements herein, provided that one (1) or
more of the following conditions are applicable:
SECTION 9. Section 1008.10, Subd 4(a) of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Temporary Signs” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
(4) The Director of Community Development may waive the permit fee for a temporary
sign requested by a charitable, municipal or religious institution or for other just cause.
SECTION 10. Section 1008.10, Subd 6 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Billboards is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck
out:
Subd. 6. Billboards: A permit shall not be issued for any new billboard unless it complies
with the following interim use requirements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.3597: (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
Ordinance 769
Page 4
a. Interim Use Permit: An interim use permit (IUP) must be obtained in accordance
with procedures identical in form and substance to the conditional use permit
procedures found in Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code. Any IUP interim use permit issued for an interim use billboard shall
automatically expire no later than December 31, 2023 July 1, 2037 or earlier if so
indicated in the resolution approving the IUP or when the lease agreement for the
billboard expires whichever date is earlier. An Such IUP shall be null-and-void if the
applicant fails to obtain any required permit from the State of Minnesota. (Ord. 644,
12-13-99; Ord. 656, 3-27-00; Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 708, 12-30-02)
b. Location: The billboard must be located along and north of State US Highway 10
(old 118), Interstate 35W or Old Highway 8. The applicant must have an approved
lease agreement with the property owner. The billboard shall be oriented towards
State US Highway 10 (old 118) and/or I35W. Billboards must be located at least two
hundred fifty feet (250') from residentially zoned property. Billboards may be located
adjacent to the right-of-way of a street or highway, but no part thereof shall extend
over such right-of-way. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
c. Minimum Spacing: The minimum spacing between Billboards must be at least
seven hundred fifty feet (750’) apart five hundred feet (500’). Spacing between signs
shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of
the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read and measuring the distance
in a straight line between the projected points. Required spacing shall apply only to
billboards on the same side of the same roadway. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-
29-01; Ord. 708, 12-30-02)
d. Maximum Sign Area: The maximum gross surface display area of the sign cannot
exceed seven hundred (700) square feet per side except that any rectangular
billboard may contain temporary extensions, cutouts, or top lettering which occupy a
total area not in excess of twenty five percent (25%) of the area of the basic billboard
and form an integral part of the design thereof. No such temporary extension, cut out,
or top lettering may project more than six feet (6') from the top, eighteen inches (18")
from either side or fifteen inches (15") from the bottom of the basic rectangular
advertising message. The area of an extension, cutout, or top lettering shall be
deemed to be the area of the smallest rectangle into which such extension, cutout, or
top lettering will fit. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
e. Orientation of Sign Faces: Billboards may have no more than two (2) sign faces.
Sign faces must be back-to-back with sign faces parallel or angled. All billboards with
their faces back-to-back and parallel shall have no greater distance than eight feet (8')
between the faces. All billboards with faces at an angle shall have no greater angle
than thirty-five degrees (35°). (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
Ordinance 769
Page 5
f. Maximum Sign Height: The maximum allowable height of billboards shall be thirty
forty-five feet (35 45'). The height shall be measured from the grade at the base of
the sign or from the surface of the roadway whichever is higher. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99;
Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
g. Obstruction: No billboard may be located in such a manner as to obscure or
otherwise interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, signal, or device, or
obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic.
(Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
h. Existing Billboards: Any billboard legally existing as of December 13, 1999, may
continue to be maintained in its present form and size but shall not be expanded.
This does not preclude the periodic changing of the message or advertisement
presented on the billboard. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
h. Maximum Number. The maximum number of billboards that may be located
within the City at any one time shall be limited to ten (10). Any billboard legally
existing at the time that this ordinance is adopted may be removed and relocated
consistent with the provisions of this Code. Any billboard in the process of being
relocated at the time that this ordinance is adopted shall be counted among the
maximum number allowed and shall be allowed to complete its relocation.
i. Destruction: Any billboard destroyed by an act of nature shall be allowed to be
rebuilt provided said billboard complies with or is capable of complying with all
requirements of this subdivision. Nonconforming billboards shall not be allowed to be
rebuilt. (Ord. 644, 12-13-99; Ord. 679, 5-29-01)
SECTION 11. Section 1008.11, Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Garage Sale Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
Subd. 3. RESERVED. Garage Sale, Estate Sale and Open House Signs: Garage sale,
estate sale and open house signs and similar signs may be allowed to be located
within a public right of way provided:
a. The duration of the display of such sign shall not exceed three (3) days.
b. No part of such sign shall extend within five feet (5') of a traveled roadway.
c. Such sign shall relate to or direct people to a residential property within the City.
d. Such sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area and shall not obscure
pedestrian or vehicle visibility or any traffic control sign or violate any other provision
of this Code, specifically subdivision 2 hereof.
Ordinance 769
Page 6
SECTION 12. Section 1008.12, Subd 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
“Prohibited Signs” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions
struck out:
Subd. 4. Temporary or permanent advertising signs posted within public right-of-ways,
excluding directional signs and signs expressly allowed herein and by other
governmental agencies.
SECTION 13. Section 1008.13 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Nonconforming Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
Subd. 3. Roof signs, unless integrally incorporated into the roof design, then such sign
shall be considered a wall sign. Roof signs in existence as of the date of
enactment of this Code revision may be allowed to continue and may be repaired
or maintained as needed, but may not be replaced except by variance.
SECTION 14. Section 1008.13 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Nonconforming Signs is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and
deletions struck out:
1008.13 NONCONFORMING SIGNS: Any sign, including a billboard, legally
existing at the time of the passage of this ordinance that does not conform in use,
location, height or size with the regulations of the zone in which such sign is located to
the provisions of this Ordinance shall be considered a legal nonconforming use or
structure sign and may be continued in such status until such time as it is either
abandoned or removed by its owner, subject to the following limitations: including
through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but not
including expansion. “Expansion” shall be defined as any structural alteration,
change or addition that is made outside of the original sign structure or design.
Subd. 1. Structural alterations, enlargement, or re-erection are permissible only
where such alterations would not increase the degree of the nonconformity of the
sign. Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the return of a sign structure that
has been declared unsafe by the Building Official to a safe condition.
Subd. 2. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed or rebuilt without
increasing the extent of the sign’s nonconformity if it is damaged. When any lawful
nonconforming sign is discontinued for a period of more than one (1) year, or
is changed to a conforming sign, any future sign shall be in conformity with
the provisions of this Ordinance.
Ordinance 769
Page 7
Subd. 3. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed and shall not be
repaired, replaced, restored, or rebuilt if it is allowed to deteriorate to the extent
that the cost of repair or restoration exceeds fifty (50%) of the replacement cost of
the sign as determined by the City’s Building Official. damaged by fire or other
similar peril to the extent of greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value
at the time of destruction and no sign permit or building permit (if applicable)
has been applied for within 180 days of the date of destruction. The City’s
Building Official shall be responsible for making the determination whether a
nonconforming sign has been destroyed greater than fifty percent (50%) of its
market value at the time of destruction. In making this determination, the
Building Official shall consider the market value of the entire sign at the time
prior to the destruction and the replacement value of the existing sign. In the
event a building permit is applied for within 180 days of the date of
destruction and the sign did not withstand damage greater than fifty percent
(50%) of its market value at the time of destruction, the City may impose
reasonable conditions upon the building permit in order to mitigate any newly
created impact on adjacent properties.
Subd. 4. A lawful nonconforming sign shall not be changed to a similar
nonconforming sign or to a more restrictive nonconforming sign.
SECTION 15. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its publication.
First reading by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 13th day of March, 2006
Second reading by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 27th day of March,
2006.
Adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 24th day of April, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Approved as to form:
Mounds View City Attorney
Item No: 07F
Meeting Date: April 24, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6795 Approving a Step Increase for Nick,
Fleischhacker, Mounds View Public Works Employee
Background:
Nick Fleischhacker is a current employee with the City of Mounds View. His supervisor
reviewed his performance as it relates to his responsibilities outlined in the job
description.
Discussion:
It was determined that Nick Fleischhacker has more than satisfactorily performed in the
capacity of his position, and therefore, a step increase wage adjustments is consistent
with the Mounds View Public Works Labor Contract.
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6795
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING STEP/LONGEVITY ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, the following below is a regular full-time employee who is currently
working for the City of Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, his supervisor reviewed his performance as it relates to the
responsibilities outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, his supervisor determined that the following employee below has
more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of his position documented in his
performance review on file.
WHEREAS, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Mounds
View Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a wage adjustment to the following indicated in the chart below.
NAME CURRENT
POSITION
DATE OF
EMPLOYMENT/CURRENT
POSITION
CURRENT STEP &
WAGE
STEP & WAGE
ADJUSTMENT
EFFECTIVE
DATE OF
ADJUSTMENT
Nick
Fleischhacker
Public Works,
Surface Water
Date of Employment:
May 13, 2003
Level B:
$20.32/hr
Level C:
$21.39/hr
May 13, 2006
Adopted this 24th day of April, 2006.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 07G
Meeting Date: April 24, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6796, Approving the Mounds View Job
Descriptions
Background:
On April 10, 2006, City Council Meeting, the City Council passed resolution 6792,
authorizing the firm Laumeyer & Associates to conduct a Salary Compensation Study
and Pay Equity Report. In order to ensure that the Salary Compensation Report and
Pay Equity Report is accurate, Department Heads along with Staff reviewed all job
descriptions within their department.
Discussion:
Updates and changes have been made to many of these job descriptions, and these
changes have been reviewed and approved by the Department Heads. Additions are
bold and underlined, and deletions are bold and stricken. Staff was not able to find
two job descriptions (Accounts Payable Clerk and the Housing/Code Enforcement
Inspector). Staff recreated these job descriptions, and these job descriptions have
been reviewed and approved by the Department Head.
Recommendation
Please review all the attached job descriptions. Staff needs these job descriptions
approved in order to start the process of the Salary Compensation Study. Staff
recommends approval of the attached resolution approving the updated Mounds View
Job Descriptions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6796
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE MOUNDS VIEW JOB DESCRIPTIONS
WHEREAS, at the April 10, 2006, City Council Meeting, the City Council passed
Resolution 6792, authorizing the firm Laumeyer & Associates to conduct a Salary
Compensation Study and Pay Equity Report; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the Salary Compensation Report and Pay
Equity Report is accurate, Department Heads along with Staff reviewed all job
descriptions; and
WHEREAS, updates and changes have been made to many of the job
descriptions; and
WHEREAS, these changes have been reviewed and approved by the
Department Heads.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve the attached updated job descriptions to be used for the
Salary Compensation Study and Pay Equity Report.
Adopted this 24th day of April, 2006.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 07J
Meeting Date: April 24, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6801 Approval of the LELS Local 204 (Police
Officers) 2006-2007 Labor Agreement
Background
Pursuant to the discussion at the April 3, 2006 Executive Session, the following contract
terms have been negotiated:
1. The Duration of the contract shall be two years (January 1, 2006 to
December 31, 2007).
2. A general Wage Increase shall be 3% in 2006 and 3% in 2007.
3. Insurance
Section 17.4 of the Labor Contract shall state:
The EMPLOYER will contribute a maximum amount of $685.20 per
month in 2006 and $732.20 in 2007 to each full-time permanent
employee for group health, dental and life insurance dependant coverage.
4. Article 14 – Compensatory Time
Increase maximum from 50 hours to 52.5 hours in Section 14.7 of the
Labor Agreement.
5. Article 20 - Uniforms
Uniform Allowances as follows:
2006: $690.00
2007: $710.00
6. Article 21.4 – Vacation Schedule
Add 5 weeks vacation for 20 years of service. There will be no
accumulation of one day per year after 15 years.
7. Appendix A – Specialty Pay
Increase FTO (Field Training Officer) from $120.00 to $150.00
Add the School Resource Officer and the DARE Officer to the Specialty
Pay. Pay is as follows:
2006: $75.00/month
2007: $100.00/month
Increase Investigator Pay from $260.00 in 2005 to the following:
2006: $270.00/month
2007: $280.00/month
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution approving the
Police Officers contract for 2006-2007.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6801
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVAL OF THE L.E.L.S, LOCAL 204 (POLICE OFFICERS)
2006 – 2007 LABOR AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ratify the
L.E.L.S., Local 204 (Police Officers) Contract for 2006-2007 with the following
amendments:
1. The Duration of the contract shall be two years (January 1, 2006 to
December 31, 2007).
2. A general Wage Increase shall be 3% in 2006 and 3% in 2007.
3. Insurance
Section 17.4 of the Labor Contract shall state:
The EMPLOYER will contribute a maximum amount of $685.20 per
month in 2006 and $732.20 in 2007 to each full-time permanent
employee for group health, dental and life insurance dependant coverage.
4. Article 14 – Compensatory Time
Increase maximum from 50 hours to 52.5 hours in Section 14.7 of the
Labor Agreement.
5. Article 20 - Uniforms
Uniform Allowances as follows:
2006: $690.00
2007: $710.00
6. Article 21.4 – Vacation Schedule
Add 5 weeks vacation for 20 years of service. There will be no
accumulation of one day per year after 15 years.
7. Appendix A – Specialty Pay
Increase FTO (Field Training Officer) from $120.00 to $150.00
Resolution 6801
Page 2
7. Appendix A – Specialty Pay continued….
Add the School Resource Officer and the DARE Officer to the Specialty
Pay. Pay is as follows:
2006: $75.00/month
2007: $100.00/month
Increase Investigator Pay from $260.00 in 2005 to the following:
2006: $270.00/month
2007: $280.00/month
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, does hereby ratify the L.E.L.S. Local 204 (Police Officers) Contract
starting on January 1, 2006 and expiring on December 31, 2007, with the
aforementioned amendments.
Presented this 24th day of April, 2006.
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
April 10, 2006 6
New Brighton City Hall 7
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 8
7:03 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: None. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, April 10, 2006 City Council Agenda 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To Approve the Monday, April 10, 2006 agenda 24
as amended. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
Donald Jenkins, 7057 Pleasant View Drive, stated Gary Rudy would be speaking for him. 31
32
Mr. Rudy stated there is a definite problem with Mr. Jenkins’ property. He said it was flooded 33
out severely last fall with water in the basement, and that he had indicated this would happen 34
with the rains. He stated that the streets have not been swept or cleaned. There is not a silt fence 35
going across the property, and this puts the City in violation because it is the local LGU. He 36
stated the City should be out there to make sure the silt fence gets up, because there is wildlife in 37
the back of the property and there has to be something as a deterrent because right now there is 38
sand going into the natural park in the back. He stated this is a big fine of possibly $50,000 to 39
$100,000, and inspectors are really coming down on the projects this year. He stated inspectors 40
are going around and checking any buildings that have any wetlands involved. 41
42
Mr. Rudy stated that a retaining wall has to be up to stop the water and keep it on Mr. Hanson’s 43
side, and drainage should be on Mr. Hanson’s property instead of coming off over the retaining 44
wall. 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
1
Mr.Rudy stated that Mr. Jenkins had mud in his basement and it was a large mess. He stated Mr. 2
Jenkins does not deserve this after being a citizen of Mounds View for 40 years. He stated it is 3
not right to have a bad neighbor. 4
5
Mayor Marty asked Community Development Director Ericson if the issue has been looked into. 6
Director Ericson stated he can follow up with the presence of the silt fence at the front and back 7
of the property and commented that he passed on the comments that the street may need to be 8
cleaned up and may not have been cleaned up previously. 9
10
Director Ericson stated that the City’s Storm Water Management Technician visited the property 11
and they both concur that the silt fencing that has been installed has been holding and functioning 12
fine since it was put up. He stated the site will be final graded later this month and there should 13
be sod there shortly thereafter. He stated Staff recommends to wait and see if this is not enough 14
of an action plan to address any potential storm water management issues between the two 15
properties. He stated Staff is not aware of any subsequent washouts or blowouts in between the 16
two properties. He stated the Storm Water Management Technician would like to see the site 17
final graded, sodded, and downspouts directed to the east and west of the building. 18
19
Director Ericson stated that if something additional is needed, the City would respond, but the 20
property owner, Mr. Hanson, should not have to go to the expense of putting up a retaining wall 21
when it may not be needed. He stated Staff recognizes this is a concern for Mr. Jenkins. He 22
indicated Staff will respond if there are issues that need a City response. 23
24
Mayor Marty asked if there has been any basement flooding since the silt fence. Mr. Rudy stated 25
there has not been, but could not recall receiving any rain. Mr. Rudy wondered what will happen 26
when the silt fencing washes away since there is “sugar sand” in the area. He stated it is going to 27
be a big problem. 28
29
Director Ericson stated the final grading has not been completed. 30
31
Mr. Jenkins stated there is a four or five foot slant in the span of ten feet. 32
33
Mr. Rudy stated there is a five and a half foot elevation difference from the elevation of Mr. 34
Hanson’s garage to Mr. Jenkins’ house on approximately twenty feet. 35
36
Mayor Marty asked when the grading is planned to be finished and when the sod will be put in. 37
Director Ericson stated Mr. Hanson indicated the final grading will be done this month and sod 38
will be installed once the final grading is done. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated since there has not been any flooding this spring, that Mr. Jenkins should 41
stay in touch with Director Ericson and if a correction is needed, then the issue should be brought 42
back to the City. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
Mr. Jenkins stated that there was not as much snow this year and it cannot be viewed as a normal 1
year. He stated the worst case scenario has to be considered. He stated he has lived there 40 2
years, and there has never been a problem since the house was built next door. 3
4
Mr. Rudy urged the City to have the silt fence put in, knowing the consequences of wetland 5
issues in a natural preserve. He stated the City would get a substantial fine from MPCA and is 6
currently in violation. 7
8
Mayor Marty asked Director Ericson to look into the issue. Director Ericson indicated he would. 9
10
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 11
12
See discussion after Section 7A. 13
14
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 15
16
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an 17
Environmental Processing Facility at 4889 Old Highway 8. 18
19
Planning Associate Heller stated that the applicant, Merlin Brisbin of Star Environmental, Inc., is 20
requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an Environmental Processing Center, 21
which would be located at 4889 Old Highway 8. This is the site of the current Skyline Motel, 22
which is zoned “Industrial”. 23
24
Planning Associate Heller stated that the Comprehensive Plan separates out light and heavy 25
industrial uses. She stated that the proposed use by Star Environmental could be interpreted as a 26
heavy industrial use. She indicated the majority of the site is designated as light industrial on the 27
future use map. 28
29
Planning Associate Heller stated that the applicant and representatives from Metro Council and 30
MFRA Engineering are here. 31
32
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. 33
34
Mary Brisbin, 8182 NE River Road, Elk River, stated Star Environmental is requesting approval 35
for a conditional use permit for a proposed environmental processing center in Mounds View. 36
She stated she and her husband, Merlin, appreciate the opportunity to present additional 37
information. She stated that over the past six years, they have carefully researched the need and 38
methods to remove solids from septage before it enters the main line of the Metropolitan 39
Council. She stated the process is safe and very effective, and has the support of the 40
Metropolitan Council. 41
42
Ms. Brisbin stated that at the April 3, 2006, Mounds View City Council meeting, several 43
individuals expressed concerns with additional traffic and odor problems that would be coming 44
with the facility. She stated that she and Mr. Brisbin have operated the septic business for 29 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
years. She stated she knows the importance of providing a clean and safe environment for the 1
employees, customers and the public. She stated they are strong supporters of regular water and 2
air testing to ensure that the system operates in a fully safe manner. She stated they support a 3
code of conduct for the haulers so that the noise is diminished, and leaks and odors are 4
controlled. She stated any haulers that do not meet the high standards would be fined and not 5
allowed to return to the facility until the issues are remedied. 6
7
Ms. Brisbin stated she appreciates the residents’ concerns in regard to the traffic issue. She 8
stated the traffic levels would increase by 1 percent on Old Highway 8. She stated with proper 9
scheduling, Star Environmental will try to minimize the impact for the homeowners at 10
Townsedge Terrace. 11
12
Ms. Brisbin commented that Star Environmental is not a large company like Medtronic, but 13
rather is a small company that is responding to the needs of the industry and of the metropolitan 14
area. She stated Star Environmental is not going to be employing thousands of people, but it will 15
be benefiting thousands of families that use septic systems and many more that rely on the 16
Metropolitan Council’s interceptor system. 17
18
Ms. Brisbin stated the proposed site in Mounds View is ideal, because the sewer line on Old 19
Highway 8 has adequate capacity, and is a short distance to a 21 inch interceptor line and a short 20
distance to the Metropolitan Council’s station on County Road H. 21
22
Ms. Brisbin indicated that Star Environmental is not asking for TIF money or financial assistance 23
from the City. She stated the project does not require the City to make a major investment in any 24
sewer or water lines, and does not require the Metropolitan Council to make any infrastructure 25
investments. She stated Star Environmental will be providing the private sector project with its 26
own resources. Ms. Brisbin indicated it will create eight well paid jobs with a capital investment 27
per job of over $600,000. She stated Star Environmental is investing $5 million to redevelop a 28
blighted property. She stated they are paying a large SAC fee of $800,000. She stated Star 29
Environmental is not seeking to buy public land; however, a purchase agreement was negotiated 30
with Skyline Motel, which is zoned industrial. 31
32
Ms. Brisbin stated that compared to other sites, this is a central location that provides good 33
access to all major roads. She stated that Star Environmental wants to be a top notch facility that 34
will exceed operating standards and meet all the company’s goals. She stated Star 35
Environmental wants to operate a facility to be proud of and one that the community can be 36
proud of as well. 37
38
Eric Larson, 6529 East County Road, Milaca, stated he has served as an elective representative 39
for 15 years. He stated elected representatives have a responsibility when there is a contentious 40
issue to sort fact from fiction. He stated the proposal has been brought to the Planning 41
Commission, and a public informational meeting was held and every question was responded to. 42
He stated sometimes people did not seem to want to hear the answers. He stated the Council 43
should gather all the information to make the proper decision based on the facts. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
Matt Fulton, City Manager of New Brighton, presented a letter signed by all the members of the 1
New Brighton City Council that recommends denying a conditional use permit to Star 2
Environmental. He stated the City of New Brighton understands the applicant’s intent and the 3
benefit that their system can provide to the metropolitan waste system, in terms of capacity and 4
flow issues. He stated as a result of their operation, it will save money for utility customers 5
throughout the metropolitan area. He stated they are trying to preserve private business. He 6
stated the City of New Brighton understands the merits of the company and what the 7
Metropolitan Council are trying to accomplish. 8
9
Mr. Fulton stated there are several concerns with the proposal. He stated there are concerns 10
about potential odors that may occur at the site during normal operations and from an accidental 11
spill at the site. He stated any odors coming out of the site would impact the immediate area, 12
including Long Lake Regional Park, the new senior cooperative building and all surrounding 13
residents. He stated this is a significant issue for the City of New Brighton. 14
15
Mr. Fulton explained there are concerns about the traffic impact on Highway 96 and Old 16
Highway 8. He stated that even though it is an increase of 1 percent, there are times when the 17
intersection is very congested. He explained that any kind of additional traffic, especially hauling 18
trucks, does have the opportunity of potential for causing a much greater impact on the 19
transportation corridor. He stated the City of New Brighton is particularly concerned because of 20
the new construction at the intersection of Highway 96, and particularly the independent haulers 21
that are not employed by Star Environmental. He stated there are concerns with how well the 22
trucks will be maintained and possible leakage or spillage. 23
24
Mr. Fulton stated that New Brighton is currently undertaking a very large residential project of an 25
investment of $70 million in the development of over 700 homes, 500,000 square feet of office 26
space, and 40,000 square feet of retail space. He explained it is all in a mixed urban village 27
interspersed with passive recreation areas. He stated anything that could get in the way of 28
successfully marketing this large project is a big concern given the significant financial 29
investment in the project. He stated it may be a clean industry, but there is a significant concern 30
with truck traffic on transportation corridors and the image aspect of this type of business. 31
32
Mr. Fulton stated the long term future of the Highway 10 corridor must be considered. He stated 33
most of the design scenarios show Highway 10 connecting in to Old Highway 8 corridor and 34
terminating at Highway 96. He stated this would mean that this parcel would be adjacent to a 35
significant corridor. He wondered if this is the appropriate long range zoning classification for 36
the property, or if it might be better zoned for a commercial use of the property. 37
38
Mayor Marty stated the long range plan by MnDOT is to close off Highway 10 where one would 39
normally exit through Mounds View onto Interstate 35W and Highway 96, and also to close off 40
County Road H and take it down to Highway 96 and make a different interchange. 41
42
Councilmember Thomas asked what the current traffic projections are for the fully developed 43
northwest quadrant. She stated the proposal by Star Environmental will have a 1 percent 44
increase, while the large development by New Brighton will result in a significant increase in 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
traffic. 1
2
Mr. Fulton stated that a study was conducted that identifies that the intersection of Old Highway 3
8 and Highway 96 needs to be reconstructed and controlled through stop lights, but also stop 4
lights need to be installed at the major intersections extending southerly. He stated the intention 5
is to create a yield turn for all eastbound traffic as they exit the site. He indicated that New 6
Brighton and portions of Arden Hills are at the tail end of the Highway 96 construction project 7
and are waiting for the final project element to be completed. Mr. Fulton stated it cannot be 8
completed until Arden Hills determines what the intersection is going to be at Highway 10 and 9
Highway 96. He stated this all comes into play with MnDOT’s long term plan because all of the 10
intersections are related. He stated that Highway 96 is a problem regardless of this proposal. He 11
stated from a traffic volume standpoint, this proposal will have a minor impact, but it is the type 12
of traffic and the possibility of leakage or spills that New Brighton is mostly concerned about. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas asked if the City of New Brighton had any discussion in regard to the 15
image and safety for the current motel and what the plan is for the increased pedestrian usage. 16
17
Mr. Fulton stated the City of New Brighton strongly encourages the City to redevelop the motel 18
site, but wonders if this is the appropriate use and zoning classification for the parcel. 19
20
Mayor Marty stated the City of New Brighton has significantly reduced the amount of truck 21
traffic due to the redevelopment of the northwest quadrant with the relocation and the closing of 22
businesses. 23
24
Mr. Fulton stated the purchase of Midwest Asphalt has made a big impact on the types of traffic. 25
26
Jerry Tobermann, 9909 South Shore Drive, Plymouth, stated he developed Townsedge Terrace in 27
1969. He stated the City Council was reluctant to approve the development at that time, as they 28
felt that mobile home residents were not paying the fair share of taxes. He stated there are 238 29
families living contiguous to the proposed project, and there are many concerned residents. He 30
stated he received several phone calls from families that indicated they would consider selling 31
their homes if the project was approved. He stated there is no guarantee that there will be no 32
spillage or odors. He stated that as representative for the 238 families, they are definitely against 33
this project going through. He stressed that no one in the room would want to live contiguous to 34
this project. 35
36
Vladimir Paraskov, 2105 Dickens Lane, Townsedge Terrace, stated there are more than 230 37
families living in the mobile home park. He stated it is one thing to pass through the mobile 38
home park, and it is another thing to live there. He stated that no fine is enough to stop the 39
business of pollution or creating problems once the facility is built. He stated there are several 40
potential impacts such as transportation, traffic, pollution, and air quality. 41
42
Mr. Paraskov stated that some mornings he has to wait ten minutes to make a right hand turn out 43
of the mobile home park. He stated this is the smallest of the problems. He stated that this 44
project could result in a potential health hazard. He questioned if a truck carrying sewage can be 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
absolutely clean and not have smell and/or drips. He stated a main concern of the residents of 1
Townsedge Terrace is what may happen to the value of their homes if this project is approved. 2
3
Jim Clark, 2152 Buckingham Lane, Townsedge Terrace, stated he is very concerned over the 4
situation as he is raising his family in Townsedge Terrace. He stressed that he is very afraid of 5
the health risks and will vacate the area if the project is approved. He stated in reading the 6
application for the conditional use permit and the approval, it talked about the use of 7
pharmaceuticals and the oil refinery in the area. He commented that he did not see where the 8
sewage end fit into that category. He stated it also indicated in the permit that the property value 9
is of no consequence to the surrounding area, and stressed that it is a big consequence to him 10
because he lives there. He stated property values will go down if the project is approved. He 11
noted there have been improvements made to the mobile home park over the years. 12
13
Mr. Clark questioned the possible pollution of Rice Creek. He stated the priority of Rice Creek 14
Watershed District is that it is a natural filter of all the water in the area, and if that were to get 15
polluted, it feeds all of the water tables in the area. He stated it does empty into the Mississippi 16
River just above the intake ducts of Minneapolis and St. Paul. He stated if there were a spillage, 17
it could be a catastrophe for many more people than just the residents of Mounds View. 18
19
Mr. Clark asked what benefit the people of Mounds View will gain from the project. He stated 20
he can see the benefit for Mounds View by increasing the property tax on the motel site, but there 21
would be a decrease in property tax revenue from the people that leave the mobile home park. 22
He indicated he pays approximately $1,400 in property tax per year and believes it is a significant 23
amount to the City when all 230 homes are taken into consideration. 24
25
Mr. Clark presented a petition signed by 170 residents of Townsedge Terrace that are against the 26
proposal. He stated that the notification by Star Environmental only went about one block into 27
the trailer park and only 62 homes were notified. 28
29
Shirley Dougherty, 2153 Buckingham Lane, Townsedge Terrace, stated that she worked on 30
creating the Rice Creek Watershed District 40 years ago. She stated it is different than all of the 31
other watershed districts in the State of Minnesota. She indicated it was put in place to protect an 32
urban creek or watershed that would feel tremendous pressure as upstream development 33
occurred. She stressed that Rice Creek is a very environmentally sensitive area. She explained 34
that the way Rice Creek comes in is that the fresh water inlet that is across a narrow strip from 35
the outlet. She indicated the lake does not get the normal turnover with an inlet and outlet like in 36
a regular lake system. She stated actions have taken place to make sure the open space will 37
protect the lake. 38
39
Ms. Dougherty stated that if there was a spill directly into the Rice Creek system, it would 40
significantly affect Long Lake. She wondered if this project got an environmental assessment or 41
review. She stated that it is not just an environmentally sensitive area, but there is also a 42
hazardous product involved. She also wondered if an annual review would be required. 43
44
Mayor Marty stated that the report and the resolution do not state that any assessment has been 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
done or that it is required. Director Ericson indicated this is correct. 1
2
Mr. Larson stated that this proposal will trigger a review of Rice Creek Watershed if the project 3
moves forward. 4
5
Matt Collins, 2220 Dickens Lane, Townsedge Terrace, stated he has been a resident for six years 6
and does not want to see this facility in his backyard. He stated he has never seen a roll off 7
container that does not leak. He stated that when the lines are dug, there will be sewage coming 8
out of the lines that will make a mess. He stated the project is not environmentally sound. He 9
stated he is concerned about the higher traffic level and the potential for more traffic accidents as 10
well as potential spillage. 11
12
John Holmes, 5012 Londonary Drive, Townsedge Terrace, stated he has been a resident for 25 to 13
30 years. He stated his understanding is that Star Environmental will use independent truck 14
companies, and commented that he has worked with and been around several trucking 15
companies, and no independent trucker keeps their truck up to code unless the DOT stops them 16
and fines them. He stated the haulers are often too busy to fix their trucks. 17
18
Mr. Holmes stated that the mobile home park is in “Tornado Alley”, and wondered what the 19
ramifications would be if a tornado were to goes over the site. He stated that not too many of the 20
mobile home park residents are in attendance of the meeting, but most do vote, and they will be 21
concerned as to how the City Council votes on this issue. 22
23
Richard Merlach, 2200 Kingsway Lane, Townsedge Terrace, stated this project is only laid out 24
on paper, and there is no prototype since it is the first one of its kind. He asked what is to 25
prevent things happening that are not on paper. He stated about 99 percent of projects on paper 26
never turn out in reality. He asked the Council how they would feel if the project was going to be 27
within a couple of blocks of their homes. 28
29
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. 30
31
Councilmember Flaherty thanked the residents for speaking on the issue. He stated the applicant 32
is trying to get a viable business to enhance the beauty of the area. He stated the blighted Skyline 33
Motel is on the Council’s list of issues to address. 34
35
Councilmember Flaherty explained that the City judges new businesses on specific guidelines. 36
He stated one guideline is the employment opportunities for the residents of Mounds View. He 37
indicated this facility will employee seven to eight employees at the most. He stated this does 38
not meet the criteria. Councilmember Flaherty stated another guideline is traffic. He stated Old 39
Highway 8 is a very busy street, and leaving the Townsedge Terrace property can be difficult at 40
times. He stated the current truck traffic is four trucks per hour at peak time. He stated this does 41
not seem like much, but it is one truck every 15 minutes that is coming around the corner. 42
Councilmember Flaherty stated he is not convinced that the opportunity for smells will never 43
happen. He explained that he has received numerous phone calls and emails on the subject, and 44
has not heard a positive response from the community. He stated he would vote against the 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
project. 1
2
Stacy Smith, 2257 Kingsway Lane, Townsedge Terrace, stated she was concerned with the safety 3
of children around the area, as well as the increased traffic levels. She stated if the project was 4
approved, no one would want to buy her home. She stated her opposition to the project. 5
6
Councilmember Stigney stated that a lot of questions have been asked of the prospective business 7
at the previous meeting, and many residents’ comments were heard tonight. 8
9
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and deny a Conditional Use 10
Permit for an Environmental Processing Facility at 4889 Old Highway 8. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney stated that this facility will be heavy industrial rather than light 13
industrial. He wondered why the Planning Commission did not look into this fact further, 14
because they recommended approval of this project by stating that it is consistent with the Comp 15
Plan. He stated there are sufficient legal reasons for denial that include the applicant is proposing 16
to operate a heavy industrial business in a light industrial zone, the applicant did not demonstrate 17
there would be no odors in association with the proposed use, and the applicant did not 18
sufficiently demonstrated that lakes or spillage would or could be prevented. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas wondered what kind of maintenance records MnDOT has, how often 21
are vehicles inspected, and what follow up is done with the vehicles. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas wondered if the Comp Plan would have to be changed to reflect a heavy 24
industrial use when the Comp Plan is reviewed next year, if this project is approved. 25
26
Director Ericson stated that if the request is approved, it is imperative that the Comp Plan be 27
reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in terms of designation of property. He 28
stated that a small part of the area is zoned heavy industrial and the rest is zoned light industrial. 29
He stated that definitions of this type of use should also be reviewed in more detail, as there is 30
not a specific and clear definition. He stated there is the greater issue of industrial uses along a 31
residential area. He stated that regardless of what happens with this request, the City needs to 32
look at this issue. 33
34
Mr. Brisbin, Star Environmental, stated the trucks are inspected once per year by MnDOT. He 35
stated if the trucks leak, they will incur a fine of $200. He stated no engine breaks are allowed, 36
and the trucks would not be allowed back into the facility until they are fixed. He indicated that 37
all haulers would receive instructional handbooks of these requirements. 38
39
Mayor Marty stated that the Planning Commission voted to approve this request, but there is an 40
addendum to the Staff report that was submitted to the Council. He stated that it was found after 41
further review of the Comp Plan, the future land use designation for the majority of this site is 42
light industrial. He stated the environmental processing site is considered a heavy industrial use. 43
He stated this facility would not be consistent with the Comp Plan. He stated that this 44
information was not presented at the time of the Planning Commission’s approval. 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Mayor Marty explained the definition of light industrial use primarily includes manufacturing, 2
processing, fabrication, assembly, packaging, incidental storage sales and distribution of 3
predominantly previously prepared materials, finished products or parts. He stated all processing 4
is within buildings with limited exterior storage, have limited truck traffic, and is free of noise, 5
odor, dust, glare, smoke, and other pollutants. Mayor Marty reviewed examples of light industrial 6
uses. 7
8
Mayor Marty explained the definition of heavy industrial use primarily includes manufacturing 9
and processing of large, bulky and predominantly raw, extracted or hazardous materials. He 10
indicated it includes storage of flammable or explosive materials that propose a threat to public 11
health or safety. He stated there is exterior storage of large equipment or material, and there is 12
outside processing or assembly that generates significant traffic, and remits amounts of noise, 13
odor, dust, glare or other pollutants. Mayor Marty reviewed examples of heavy industrial uses. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated that based on this information, the request is not consistent with the current 16
Comp Plan. He stated there would be depreciation of the residential area bordering the facility, 17
and the proximity of the residential neighborhood should be kept in mind. He stated that the area 18
already has high truck traffic due to the existing businesses in the industrial park, and New 19
Brighton has made a concerted effort to develop the area and reduce truck traffic. He stated it is 20
not a good idea to replace the amount of truck traffic that has been reduced with septage trucks. 21
22
Mayor Marty stated the Metropolitan Council is behind this project, and indicated they are 23
closing four locations in the northern and western areas of the metropolitan area (Forest Lake, 24
Coon Rapids, Maple Grove, Plymouth). He indicated the sites in Forest Lake and Coon Rapids 25
are not monitored, but instead the trucks back up to manholes and make a discharge. He stated 26
there is no indication as to the amount of trucks that use these sites because it is not monitored. 27
Mayor Marty stated Coon Rapids wants to get rid of the site because of the number of trucks 28
backing up to the manhole. He stated he is concerned that if all four sites close then the traffic 29
will come to Mounds View. He referenced the March 27, 2006, Council minutes, where it was 30
quoted that “there would be increased traffic of nine to ten vehicles per hour“, but now it is 31
quoted at four to seven vehicles per hour. 32
33
Mayor Marty stated the Planning Commission examined all issues and recommended approval 34
recognizing there are mechanisms that can be instituted with a conditional use permit for noise 35
and odors if there is a problem. He stated that the applicants are trying to do a good service, but 36
if $5 million is put into the project, the treatment plant may not be able to be extricated from 37
Mounds View. He stated there could be fines assessed, but it would be too late. 38
39
Mayor Marty stated that New Brighton has been a good neighbor to Mounds View. He stated he 40
has not heard anything positive about the project from any surrounding cities. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated the residents of the City of Mounds View are on City water and sewer, so no 43
residents would benefit from a septage center, and may be more of a detriment to residents. He 44
indicated he has yet to receive a call in favor of this proposal. 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
1
Mayor Marty stated there are sufficient means to deny this conditional use permit because it is 2
inconsistent with the Comp Plan. He stated in order to be in compliance with the Comp Plan, it 3
would necessitate changing the Comp Plan to accommodate this business. He stated he cannot 4
support this proposal. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas stated she grew up in a mobile home park and feels a need to defend the 7
residents in the area. She stated the residents of the mobile home park are concerned about the 8
blighted motel property as well. She stated she is concerned with the Comp Plan issues. She 9
indicated there are truck issues as there is no record of how closely MnDOT watches trucks. She 10
stated it can be a difficult thing to keep on top of. She stated there is a health and safety issue 11
currently going on at the motel property right now that the City cannot stay on top of. 12
13
Councilmember Thomas stated this is the first time there has been a willing seller and buyer of 14
the property. She wondered how long it would take to find another two willing parties. 15
16
Councilmember Thomas indicated the City is not doing a service either way by what is at the 17
property now or what would come in. 18
19
Councilmember Stigney stated the City is doing a great service for the people of Townsedge 20
Terrace by not allowing the business to come in. He stated the motel is an entirely different 21
issue, and what is being discussed is the proposed business coming in. He stated it is important 22
to deny the request for the stated residents’ concerns, and that needs to be the focus regardless of 23
the other issues with the motel. 24
25
Councilmember Gunn stated she has heard the residents’ concerns and has talked to the proposed 26
business owners. She stated she is concerned about traffic and the Comp Plan. She indicated she 27
did know if the City should get into changing it right now. She stated she does not like the motel 28
and it is a big problem for the City. She stated the Townsedge Terrace residents should also be 29
concerned about that. She stated she has to listen to the residents’ concerns and is leaning toward 30
denying the project. 31
32
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that the resolution includes recommended amendments that 33
would revise Item 4 and add Item 5. 34
35
Councilmember Stigney accepted the amendments to motion. Mayor Marty accepted as well. 36
37
Mayor Marty added that people could be dumping material down septic tanks from meth labs 38
that is highly hazardous, and in ten years from now, there may be something even worse. He 39
stated it is a new facility but in 15 years, the pipes will be older and may start leaking, and 40
wondered what would happen then. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated that something needs to be done about the motel, but this proposed facility is 43
not the answer. He stated he received several calls and emails, especially from the residents of 44
Townsedge Terrace, in opposition to the project. 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
1
Mayor Marty stated that this does indicate that the owner of the Skyline Motel may be willing to 2
sell to another developer or another such use that may come along. 3
4
Mayor Marty noted that Councilmember Thomas wanted to keep billboards off Old Highway 8 5
for the residents’ sake, but then indicated it would be acceptable to put a septage treatment plant 6
in their backyards. 7
8
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9
10
William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, questioned how the process was started. Mayor Marty 11
explained a purchase agreement was made and the buyer needed a conditional use permit for the 12
intended use. 13
14
Mayor Marty recessed the meeting at 8:33 p.m. 15
16
Mayor Marty called the meeting back to order at 8:42 p.m. 17
18
Mayor Marty introduced new Metropolitan Council representative Kris Sanda. 19
20
Ms. Sanda stated she is the newly appointed Metropolitan Council representative for the district. 21
She indicated she was visiting the City Councils of all the cities in the district. 22
23
Ms. Sanda stated that Mounds View currently has a wonderful process, and it is a local call to 24
make the decision on the environmental processing plant. She indicated that the number of 25
septic tank properties are increasing in the metropolitan area, and by 2030, there is going to be 26
about 75 more septic tank properties for residential owners in the metropolitan area. She 27
indicated part of it is because there is construction being allowed in what were previously 28
wetland areas, and there are new methodologies on septic systems and the type of buildings that 29
are being constructed. She explained there are former sod farms in Blaine that are being 30
converted into housing. She stated there is a paradigm shift in the housing being built and the 31
type of housing people want to buy. Ms. Sander thanked the Council for the opportunity to 32
address the City. 33
34
B. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 771, an Ordinance Amending 35
Chapters 502 and 503 Regarding Liquor Licenses. 36
37
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the first proposed amendment changes 38
the code to require that a public hearing be conducted for every new, transferred or renewed 39
license. He noted this change is recommended based on feedback from residents who would 40
have wanted to provide input during license renewals. 41
42
Director Ericson explained that the other proposed amendment would allow liquor license 43
facilities to offer outdoor seating in association with their establishment. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
Director Ericson stated the second reading will be at the April 24, 2006, City Council meeting. 1
2
Mayor Marty wondered if this Ordinance applies to liquor licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor. 3
Director Ericson indicated there is a separation in the code of chapters for intoxicating and non-4
intoxicating liquor licenses, and explained this Ordinance applies to both parts of the code. 5
6
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve the Introduction 7
and First Reading of Ordinance 771, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 502 and 503 Regarding 8
Liquor Licenses. 9
10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
C. Resolution 6782 Authorization to Hire a Communications Coordinator for 13
the Administration. 14
15
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained this position would be a full time exempt 16
position, and will be a union position under the AFSCME Union Contract. 17
18
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane noted that interviews were conducted and the top 19
choice to fill the position is Kimberly Blackford. She explained that Ms. Blackford has a 20
background with cable casting City Council Meetings with Brooklyn Park and the City of 21
Crystal. She was also a Videographer with Legal Video. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas stated she is concerned about the lack of website experience. She stated 24
she understands that it is a full-time position that would have split duties. She stated that training 25
needs to come first and foremost and hopes that other candidates that had website experience 26
were not ignored. She stressed that website communication is very important. 27
28
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated that is a valid concern, but the interviewing 29
panel had to weigh in the different types of experience the applicants had. She stated that Ms. 30
Blackford has experience in writing and cable, but lacked a bit in website design. Assistant to 31
the Administrator Crane commented that Director Ericson indicated it would be a fast transition 32
to provide training on the website. 33
34
Councilmember Flaherty stated that clearly one of the main elements of the job is the website 35
maintenance and design. He suggested Ms. Blackford should be enrolled in classes immediately. 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty asked who the website host is. City Administrator Ulrich stated it is 38
through the City of Roseville. 39
40
Councilmember Flaherty asked if the City has access to change the soft coded material on the 41
website. City Administrator Ulrich stated the City is looking at different web hosting site to 42
allow a more user-friendly environment and a less labor intensive process to allow more of Staff 43
to make updates on a regular basis. He added that it is currently very time consuming for 44
Director Ericson to do the website work. 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
1
Councilmember Flaherty stated the yearly maintenance fee for website hosts can be quite 2
expensive. 3
4
Jonathan Thomas, 8480 Groveland Road, stated he is a computer systems engineering consultant, 5
and indicated that anything can be changed on the website. He stated the web is like a book with 6
chapters and sub-chapters, and all of the pages are a document. He explained the language to tie 7
it all together can be complicated and will vary with internet providers, but the City does have 8
complete control over the entire website. 9
10
Mr. Thomas stressed that this position needs to understand the issues with security, and this may 11
not come necessarily by sending the person to classes. 12
13
Councilmember Flaherty asked Mr. Thomas if there is any hard coding done by the website host 14
to limit access. Mr. Thomas indicated all material is soft coded. He added there is tremendous 15
competition by internet service providers that leads to a much lower price. 16
17
Councilmember Gunn indicated she was not that concerned about the lack of website experience. 18
She stated the web site is established and there is not that much to learn for the website. She 19
suggested a class on web page design might be available through Community Education 20
department. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas stated that website design is not difficult, but the position is to manage 23
the website and the information. She stated the City has put certain tasks off because it is waiting 24
for the right person to come on board with the appropriate knowledge. She stated there would be 25
further delays in the communication forum until this person receives the proper training. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated this was also his concern, but due to the fact that Director Ericson was one of 28
the interviewers and has been the only person to work on the website ever since he put it 29
together, it gave him some confidence that this person could learn the website part of the 30
position. He added that the employee would also be on a probationary period. 31
32
Councilmember Gunn stated the City does need to allow her the opportunity to complete training 33
and courses. 34
35
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6782 36
Authorization to Hire a Communications Coordinator for the Administration. 37
38
Councilmember Stigney asked for the resolution to be read. He stated the position should be a 39
three-fourths time cable coordinator that is paid by the cable franchise fee as it has always been. 40
He stated this full time position will result in taxpayers picking up the 25 percent additional cost 41
and there would need to be full-time employee benefits paid. He stated the additional 42
communication duties could have been assigned to an existing full-time Staff member. He stated 43
he does not support hiring an additional person. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
City Administrator Ulrich read the resolution. 1
2
Mayor Marty stated the three-fourths time cable coordinator position did the cable part pretty 3
well, but the website was severely lacking. He explained that Director Ericson updated the 4
website in his limited spare time. He indicated that this person would also do any necessary 5
press releases out of the City. He indicated the position includes several additional job duties 6
and responsibilities. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney stated that the additional duties should be handled by existing full-time 9
Staff. 10
11
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 12
13
D. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending 14
Chapter 7 of the City Charter Relating to Taxation and Finances. 15
16
Jonathan Thomas, Mounds View Charter Chairperson, stated it was recommended that Chapter 17
7.04, Subdivision 1, be changed so that the sentences regarding the “proposed operating budget” 18
and the “final budget” are reversed. He indicated this was discussed in the Work Session, but 19
was not changed on the Ordinance. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney stated that in Section 7.05, he stated he has concerns with using the 22
word “element” to describe the Five-Year Financial Plan. He stated “element” is inappropriate to 23
redefine the names of the segments that are in the Five-Year Financial Plan. He stated they 24
should be called “Program” or “Summary”, as they have always been called. He stated the word 25
does not have to be tied into all the titles. 26
27
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the difference of the words is semantics. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney stated he has a problem with renaming a program to call it an element. 30
31
Councilmember Thomas asked Finance Director Beer if it changes the financial reporting from 32
the City by using the word “element”. Finance Director Beer indicates he does not foresee any 33
problems, and the only issue may be that some people have become accustomed to the verbiage 34
that was used previously. 35
36
Councilmember Gunn stated that she agrees with the use of the word “element”. 37
38
Councilmember Thomas noted that there are programs within the elements. 39
40
Councilmember Gunn wondered if Subdivision 5 should read “…above-described elements…” 41
42
Mr. Thomas stated this could be considered a friendly amendment. 43
44
Mr. Thomas stated that the term “element” is a very significant issue, and the goal is to try to 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
achieve consistent terminology throughout the City Charter. He stated the items are pieces or 1
elements of the plan. He stated that within Chapter 7, the Commission has tried to achieve 2
consistency throughout the whole chapter. He indicated for the process to work, there must be 3
total and complete agreement. He noted that Councilmember Stigney did not have any 4
suggestions on how to make the wording consistent at the Work Session. 5
6
Councilmember Stigney stated he did not care how the breakdown was described, but that he was 7
against renaming items to elements that are already defined as programs. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas wondered what makes the item a program. She stated the word 10
“program” is being used incorrectly, and the items should be referred to as an element as part of 11
the financial plan. 12
13
Councilmember Flaherty stated the term “element” is in the correct context as a portion of the 14
entity. 15
16
Councilmember Thomas stated that any amendment would result in the resolution being brought 17
back to the Charter Commission. 18
19
Mayor Marty stated he concurred with Councilmember Stigney. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn stated that the whole purpose of the Charter Commission is to go through 22
the Charter and update it to make it more relevant to today. She stated that changing the wording 23
to element makes more sense. 24
25
Mr. Thomas indicated that Councilmember Stigney helped two and three years ago, and no 26
response was received this year, and now at the process of adoption, he is bantering over the 27
word “element” and leaving out the improvements of seven pages of incredibly difficult work to 28
do over three years. 29
30
Councilmember Stigney indicated that a closer look should be taken at the word “element”. 31
32
Mr. Thomas stated that Councilmember Stigney should have asked him a year ago about this. 33
34
Mayor Marty asked if the resolution was presented a year ago. Mr. Thomas stated it was. 35
36
Mr. Thomas stated that copies were distributed and people could have been working on it. He 37
stated that work is being done in a statutory environment where nothing can be changed tonight 38
without the Charter Commission discussing it. He indicated it is difficult to grasp reworking the 39
entire chapter because someone does not like the word “element”. 40
41
Councilmember Stigney suggested that it be brought back to the Charter Commission because 42
there will be no unanimous vote. 43
44
Mr. Thomas stated there is a timeline to deal with for the ballot issue on Chapter 7.03 that is 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
based on an amendment to Chapter 7. 1
2
Mr. Thomas indicated that the Charter Commission first submitted the resolution in February 3
2005 and the Council had within 60 days to put it on its agenda to adopt or send back for a 4
recommendation. He stated this is not the first time that it gets to the adoption part of the process 5
when it receives a substantive change to the language when it had received no previous 6
recommendations. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney indicated that the Charter Commission did not come to the Council. 9
10
Councilmember Flaherty asked Councilmember Stigney if he is contending that the word 11
“element” is being used incorrectly. Councilmember Stigney stated that the word “element” is 12
being applied to all the things, and the word “element” does work in the correct context in 13
Subdivision 1, but not in Subdivisions 2 through 6. 14
15
Councilmember Stigney stated he would like Staff to provide a list of the appropriate and correct 16
usage of the items in the Five-Year Financial Plan. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To postpone the Introduction and First Reading of 19
Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Charter until the April 24, 2006, 20
Council Meeting. 21
22
Councilmember Stigney asked if there will be a response from Staff as to the correct 23
terminology. City Administrator Ulrich stated there would be. 24
25
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26
27
E. Resolution 6793 Step Increase for Deputy Chief Tom Kinney of the Mounds 28
View Police Department. 29
30
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained a step wage increase adjustment is 31
recommended for Deputy Police Chief Tom Kinney that is consistent with the Personnel Manual 32
and Labor Agreements. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To adopt Resolution 6793 Step Increase for 35
Deputy Chief Tom Kinney of the Mounds View Police Department. 36
37
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 38
39
F. Resolution 6693 Transfer of Business Ownership from Elias Saman to 40
Khalid Ahmed for a Tobacco and Gasoline Business License for the Mounds 41
View BP located at 2155 Highway 10. 42
43
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that a transfer of ownership was requested 44
on December 12, 2005. She noted that the City Council was made aware of Fire Code violations 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
at the Mounds View BP property at the December 12, 2005 Council meeting, and the matter was 1
to be readdressed once the property received a satisfactory fire inspection. She noted that the 2
property has received a satisfactory fire inspection from the Mounds View Fire Marshall. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty stated he would have liked to see that the applicant exceeded the 5
requirements of the Fire code. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6693 8
Transfer of Business Ownership from Elias Saman to Khalid Ahmed for a Tobacco and Gasoline 9
Business License for the Mounds View BP located at 2155 Highway 10. 10
11
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 12
13
G. Resolution 6792 Awarding a Firm to Conduct a Salary Compensation Study 14
and Pay Equity Report for Mounds View City Employees. 15
16
City Administrator Ulrich explained that Staff received four proposals for the study. He 17
indicated that two interviews were conducted with the two lowest bidders, and both firms 18
indicated they could do the work satisfactorily. 19
20
City Administrator noted the apparent low bidder is Laumeyer & Associates with a total bid of 21
$11,000. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6792 24
Awarding a Firm to Conduct a Salary Compensation Study and Pay Equity Report for Mounds 25
View City Employees. 26
27
Mayor Marty asked if the interview with Laumeyer and Associates came across well. 28
Councilmember Flaherty stated he was very impressed by both Mr. Laumeyer and Mr. Bredy, 29
and highly recommended approval. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney stated he was also impressed by Laumeyer and Associates. He noted 32
they were asked several difficult questions. He noted Springsted, Inc. had a problem with the 33
time frame and would cost more. 34
35
Mayor Marty liked the fact that Laumeyer and Associates met with City Staff to be more hands-36
on, and that they are substantially more cost effective and their bid is all-inclusive of all 37
expenses. He stated he finds Laumeyer and Associates acceptable. 38
39
Councilmember Flaherty commented that Springsted was more than willing to interview 40
employees just as Laumeyer and Associates did. He stated he was much more comfortable with 41
Laumeyer and Associates, and pointed out they were also the low bidder. 42
43
Councilmember Stigney commented that Laumeyer and Associates have had more direct 44
involvement with cities as opposed to companies. 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
1
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 2
3
8. CONSENT AGENDA 4
5
Mayor Marty asked to remove Item D. Councilmember Stigney asked to remove Item E. 6
Councilmember Flaherty asked to remove Item G. 7
8
A. Licenses for Approval. 9
B. Resolution 6788 Authorizing the Purchase of Digital Recording Equipment 10
for the Police Department Utilizing Forfeiture Funds. 11
C. Resolution 6791 Authorizing Mounds View City Hall to be closed on Friday, 12
May 5, 2006, starting 12:00 Noon Due to the Move Back to the New City Hall 13
Facility. 14
D. Set a Public Hearing Monday, April 24, 2006 at 7:05 p.m. for the Second 15
Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the 16
Mounds View City Charter. 17
E. Resolution 6790 Approving the Contract Award for Cleaning Services for 18
City Hall Offices and the Mounds View Police Department. 19
F. Resolution 6781 Authorizing Execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement 20
between Ramsey County and the City of Mounds View for the CDBG Act. 21
G. Set a Public Hearing Monday, April 24, 2006 at 7:10 p.m. for a Conditional 22
Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the readings and approve the Consent 25
Agenda Items A through C and F. 26
27
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
8E. Resolution 6790 Approving the Contract Award for Cleaning Services for 30
City Hall Offices and the Mounds View Police Department. 31
32
Councilmember Stigney asked if the same cleaning company would clean the Mounds View 33
Community Center. City Administrator Ulrich indicated the contract is just for cleaning at the 34
City Hall, and the Community Center will be maintained by current City Staff as it was before. 35
He indicated that the cleaning of the Community Center is done by part-time staff from Public 36
Works. 37
38
Councilmember Stigney asked if it is cost effective to have Staff do the cleaning. City 39
Administrator Ulrich stated the position has been combined with other duties such as routine 40
maintenance and repair work, and indicated he will check to see if it should the cleaning should 41
be bid out with the Community Center. He stated he would expect the per hour charge from the 42
contract vendor to be less than paying a full-time employee. 43
44
City Administrator Ulrich stated this change may be a good opportunity to free up hours for more 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
valued maintenance work with the Community Center or additional hours outside of Public 1
Works time. He offered to check more into it. 2
3
Mayor Marty and Councilmember Stigney indicated they would like to look at this. 4
5
Mayor Marty asked if Maria Alonso was ever contacted to see if she would put out a bid for 6
cleaning services. City Administrator Ulrich stated he did not have her contact information, and 7
the last he knew she was employed by Coverall and could not enter into an independent contract. 8
He indicated it would have to be advertised as a separate job. 9
10
Mayor Marty stated that Ms. Alonso paid Coverall for her contract with City Hall and the job 11
was running out but she indicated she still owed payments to Coverall. 12
13
Mayor Marty wondered if the contract would need to be re-bid. City Administrator Ulrich 14
indicated the contract would have to be re-bid which would take another month. 15
16
City Administrator Ulrich suggested an addendum could be added to the existing contract, as 17
Coverall was the lowest bidder by far. 18
19
Councilmember Gunn asked if it is a yearly contract. City Administrator Ulrich responded that it 20
has a 30 or 60 days termination provision. 21
22
Councilmember Gunn suggested leaving the contract as it is and look into what is going on and 23
proceed from there. 24
25
Finance Director Beer stated the contract is for a period of two years. City Administrator Ulrich 26
explained there is a termination provision in the contract. 27
28
Councilmember Stigney asked if the contract would have to be re-bid with an addendum. City 29
Administrator Ulrich indicated it would not have to be re-bid. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6790 32
Approving the Contract Award for Cleaning Services for City Hall Offices and the Mounds View 33
Police Department. 34
35
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 36
37
Councilmember Stigney confirmed that Staff will look at the possibility of an addendum. 38
39
8G. Set a Public Hearing Monday, April 24, 2006 at 7:10 p.m. for a Conditional 40
Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road. 41
42
Director Ericson explained the applicant is proposing to build a garage that will be slightly larger 43
than is allowed by code without a conditional use permit. He stated it will be a three stall garage 44
that will be used to park a recreational vehicle inside. 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
1
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. Set a Public Hearing Monday, April 24, 2006 at 2
7:10 p.m. for a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road. 3
4
Director Ericson indicated the resolution should be amended to hold the public hearing at 7:05 5
p.m. Councilmembers Flaherty and Stigney agreed to the amendment. 6
7
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8
9
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 10
11
Councilmember Flaherty referenced check number 118232 for $56,064 to Jay Bros., Inc. for the 12
Random Park Building, and asked if it was for the moving of the building. Finance Director 13
Beer responded that this is the first payment request. 14
15
Councilmember Flaherty asked what the total cost would be for the building move. Finance 16
Director Beer stated the total cost will be approximately $240,000. 17
18
Mayor Marty referenced check number 118254 for $300 to Schmieg-Washburn Industries for the 19
golf course site bids. Director Ericson responded that this is an old invoice that was for work on 20
the billboard negotiations with Clear Channel. 21
22
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as presented. 23
24
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 25
26
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27
28
A. March 27, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To Approve the March 27, 2006 City Council 31
meeting minutes as corrected and with corrections that Staff received. 32
33
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 34
35
B. April 3, 2006 Executive Session Minutes 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To Approve the April 3, 2006 Executive Session 38
meeting minutes as presented. 39
40
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 41
42
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
11. REPORTS 1
2
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 3
4
Councilmember Stigney commented that he received a telephone call from a resident who was 5
unhappy that the Streets meeting was scheduled for April 13, 2006, because it is a holy day and 6
many people will be at church and will not be able to attend. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney stated that the resident also wondered if the existing street surveys 9
would be taken into consideration or if the study will be started from scratch. 10
11
Mayor Marty stated he received a question if a motorcycle club could be in the City’s Festival in 12
the Park parade. Councilmember Gunn stated that would be fine and reminded the residents that 13
the Festival in the Park is scheduled for August 20, 2006. 14
15
Mayor Marty added that the Festival in the Park is looking for volunteers, and anyone interested 16
should call Councilmember Gunn. 17
18
B. Reports of Staff 19
20
1. Assistant to the Administrator Crane 21
22
Assistant to the Administrator Crane announced the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting will be held 23
at the Mounds View Community Center on 5394 Edgewood Drive on Saturday, April 29, 2006. 24
She stated the event will start at 9:00 a.m. 25
26
2. City Administrator Ulrich 27
28
City Administrator Ulrich reported on the status of the supplemental appropriation before the 29
Minnesota Legislature for the additional $400,000 in funding for the proposed noise wall 30
extension on the south side of Trunk Highway 10. He explained that a hearing is tentatively 31
scheduled for April 11, 2006, at 3:00 p.m., and there will be Staff present to represent the City. 32
He invited the City Council to attend the hearing. 33
34
3. Community Development Director Ericson 35
36
Director Ericson noted there is a vacancy for a resident position on the Economic Development 37
Commission, and that the vacancy will be posted to seek applicants. 38
39
Director Ericson explained that draft plans have been prepared for the Red Oak Estates #3 40
townhome project. He stated that floor plans and front elevations for the proposed buildings 41
have been submitted. He mentioned the appearance and characteristics of the design work could 42
change as it goes through the bidding process. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
Director Ericson stated that the existing six townhome owners do not want a swimming pool or 1
tennis court, and in lieu of this, Mr. Harstad has offered to provide the cash equivalent of 2
$58,000 to the Mounds View Park and Recreation Commission. 3
4
Director Ericson indicated he spoke with Jim Thompson, League of Minnesota Cities Insurance 5
Trust, who represented the City on the issue, and he clarified there would be no adverse issues if 6
the City accepts the offer of financial consideration in lieu of the construction of the amenities. 7
He stated that Mr. Thompson indicated the City is within its ability to grant a waiver of the 8
construction of the pool and tennis court. Director Ericson suggested that a memorandum of 9
understanding could be prepared if the Council chooses and that by drafting this memorandum, 10
the City is not waiving its rights or responsibilities of the other conditions of the settlement. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney asked who would maintain the pool and tennis courts if they were built. 13
Director Ericson indicated the townhome owners would be responsible. 14
15
Councilmember Stigney asked if the amount of $58,000 has been verified by Staff. Director 16
Ericson indicated that estimates have not been sought, but Staff feels that this is an accurate 17
representation of what it would cost to install a pool and tennis court. 18
19
Councilmember Flaherty and Mayor Marty asked what this is based on. He stated this is based 20
on the understanding what it would cost to make the improvements. He indicated the City may 21
not be in a position to ask for anything else. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To authorize Staff to draft a memorandum of 24
understanding to accept payment from Red Oaks Estates #3 in the amount of $58,000 in lieu of 25
constructing the pool and tennis courts, given the amount of $58,000 is able to be substantiated 26
within $5,000. 27
28
Councilmember Flaherty stated he is not suggesting negotiation, but would like to have the 29
numbers substantiated and if they cannot be, then the issue should be readdressed. 30
31
Director Ericson stated that Mr. Harstad has been asking about this issue for a couple of months, 32
and he is prepared to move forward with construction of the pool and tennis courts. Director 33
Ericson explained Mr. Harstad has offered to provide a cash donation to the City in lieu of the 34
construction, and the issue can be delayed, but in the process of waiting, construction may begin 35
on the pool and tennis courts. 36
37
Councilmember Thomas stated she sees no reason the issue should be delayed if the number can 38
be substantiated. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated the six residents have expressed concerns that they do not want to have a 41
pool or tennis courts built because of a potential increase in the assessment fee. 42
43
Mayor Marty wondered if there is room on the site to build a pool and tennis courts. Director 44
Ericson replied it would be on the northeast corner of County Road H2 and Long Lake Road. 45
Mounds View City Council April 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
1
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Motion carried. 2
3
4. Finance Director Beer 4
5
Finance Director Beer explained he recently attended the Metro I-Net Users meeting, and one of 6
the topics of discussion was in regard to Roseville evaluating the agreements with the 13 cities 7
they are doing business with. He explained that Roseville determined that they are not charging 8
enough, and it was initially estimated that the City of Mounds View has underpaid by $20,000. 9
He stated the proposal is to spread out the underpayment over a three period to catch up to where 10
Roseville thinks the City of Mounds View should be. 11
12
Finance Director Beer commented that security for the Metro I-Net System was also discussed, 13
and they would like users to have a common set of rules to loosely govern use of the system to 14
make sure it is secure for every user. 15
16
C. Reports of City Attorney 17
18
None. 19
20
12. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. (Special 21
Work Session with Charter Commission) 22
Next Council Meeting: Monday, April 24, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 23
24
13. ADJOURNMENT 25
26
The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m. 27
28
Transcribed by: 29
30
Annette Anderson 31
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 32
1
Kennedy Scott J. Riggs
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
&
Graven (612) 337-9260 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
sriggs@kennedy-graven.com
C H A R T E R E D
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members of the City of Mounds View
FROM: Scott Riggs, City Attorney
DATE: April 20, 2006
RE: Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue
___________________________________________________________________________
I have reviewed the additional information that was submitted by the Amundsens to the City
pertaining to their fence and the location placement of their neighbor’s retaining wall. The
information consists of several excerpts of the City Code pertaining to setbacks for buildings,
accessory buildings, parking areas and a provision on encroachments.
The information that was submitted does not change my opinion with respect to this matter
because the City’s Code provisions that were cited do not appear to be applicable to this situation.
There are no provisions in the City Code that require a retaining wall to be set back a certain
distance from a lot line or a fence. Since there are not any City Code provisions that address the
setback for a retaining wall, City staff has been consistent in permitting retaining walls near
property lines in the past in similar types of situations. The City Council can rely on City staff's
interpretation of ordinances and past practice. Most cases in Minnesota hold that an administrative
interpretation of an ordinance is entitled to deference by the courts. See J.B. Press v. City of
Minneapolis, 553 N.W.2d 80, 85 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).