HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/05/08
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, May 8, 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.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05pm Public Hearing Resolution 6803, Re-Approval of an Expired Conditional Use Permit
for an Oversize Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive.
B. Adoption of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code Relating to Signs and Billboards. (ROLL CALL VOTE)
C. Resolution 6813 Adopting a Calendar for the Preparation of the 2007 Budget.
D. Resolution 6807 Approving a Public Works Intern Position
E. Resolution 6808 Authorization to Advertise for the Public Works Lead Utility Worker Position
F. Resolution 6811 Authorization to purchase Window Treatments for Renovated City Hall.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, May 22, 2005 at 7:05pm for a Second Reading and
Adoption of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City
Charter.
C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 PM Monday, May 22, 2006 to Consider the Second Readings
and Adoption of Ordinances 761, 762 and 763 Relating to the Rezoning, Land Transfer and
Easement Vacation Associated with the SYSCO Minnesota Development
D. Resolution 6810 Approving Change Orders No. 18 and 19 for the City Hall Rehabilitation
Project
E. Resolution 6809 Acceptance and Final Payment Approval for the Emergency Vehicle
Preemption (EVP) Installation Project
F. Resolution 6806 Proclaiming May 9, 2006 as Arbor Day
G. Set a Public Hearing for 7:15PM for Monday, May 22, 2006 to Consider a Transfer of an
On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Business License from Mounds View Jakes, Inc. to Moe’s
located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds View.
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
City Council Meeting
May 8, 2006
Page 2
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 24, 2006 City Council Minutes.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
1. Report on Progress Toward Goals
2. Tree City USA Designation
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, June 5, 2006 at 7pm (Mounds View City Hall)
Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 22, 2006 at 7pm (Mounds View City Hall)
Item No: 7A
Meeting Date: May 8, 2006
Type of Business: PH & CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, Re-consideration of an Expired
Conditional Use Permit for an Over-size Garage at
2832 Woodale Drive; Planning Case CU00-004
Introduction:
The applicant, Thomas Stampfle, is requesting re-approval of a conditional use permit (CUP)
to construct a 1,248 square-foot garage on his property located at 2832 Woodale Drive. The
CUP was originally approved in 2000, but because the garage was not built within a year’s
time, the CUP expired. The wooded 37,000 square-foot lot is well maintained and improved
with a one and a half story cape cod and a small two-car garage attached to the home by a
breezeway. The existing garage will be demolished to make room for the proposed garage,
which would be built in the same location attached to the breezeway in the side yard. There
is a small 10 x 10 shed on the property, hidden from view in the backyard.
Discussion:
The City Code, in Section 1125.01, Subd 3f, indicates the following:
f. Lapse of Conditional Use Permit by Nonuse: Whenever, within one year after granting a
conditional use permit, the work as permitted by the permit shall not have been completed,
then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to
complete the work has been granted by the City Council. Such extension shall be requested,
in writing, and filed with the City Clerk-Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the
expiration of the original conditional use permit. There shall be no charge for the filing of such
petition. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete
the work permitted in the conditional use permit. Such petition shall be presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation and to the City Council for a
decision.
Mr. Stampfle is now prepared to move forward with the construction, however because the
time elapsed from the date of approval exceeds one year, an extension would not be
possible and thus a reapproval is necessary. The construction plans dropped off by Mr.
Stampfle are consistent with what was approved by the City on May 22, 2000. The original
resolution of approval (Resolution 5441) is attached for the Council’s reference.
Section 1106.4, Subd 6, lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for garages
larger than 952 square ft. These requirements, such as setbacks and maximum square-
footage remain satisfied with this proposal. The setback for an accessory structure is five
feet; the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the garage 10 feet from the side property line
and 70 ft from the street. The Code sets an upper limit of accessory storage space on a
property at 1,800 square ft. With the proposed garage and the shed in the rear yard, there
would be 1,348 square ft of accessory buildings on this lot, well within the maximum allowed.
Stampfle CUP Report
May 8, 2006
Page 2
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 or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
• The Character of the Surrounding Area
• The demonstrated need for such a use.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas
so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential
property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2832 Woodale Drive,
as low-density residential. Most of the lots in this area of Mounds View are exceed the
minimum requirements and are able to support larger garages. There is a good mix of
housing styles in the neighborhood, some of which are traditional, others, including the home
adjacent to the east, are more eclectic or avant-garde. Given the size of the lot, a privacy
fence along the east side property line and the wooded condition of the lot, it is not believed
that the construction of the proposed 1,248 square-foot garage would depreciate the
neighborhood in any way. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and
would fit with the general character of the neighborhood.
The applicant has indicated that the existing garage is in poor condition and needs to be
replaced. Given the inconvenient location of the shed, the expanded garage area would offer
additional convenient storage space. Staff inspected the property and believes that the
proposed garage would not appear out of place, would be more than adequately screened
from the neighbors and 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.
Stampfle CUP Report
May 8, 2006
Page 3
In addition to a privacy fence alongside the existing garage, this lot is wooded which
acts as a natural buffer and screen between the proposed garage and neighboring
properties. It is not expected that the proposed garage would detrimentally impact
either the subject property or the adjacent and neighboring properties.
3. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon
adjacent residential properties.
The garage would be sided and painted to match the appearance of the breezeway
and home. A stipulation to this affect is included in the resolution.
4. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
Given adequate lot size and screening, the Planning Commission and City Council
have indicated that oversized garages are a positive improvement to a property and
provides for additional storage space for vehicles and other things that might otherwise
be stored outside.
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.
Stampfle CUP Report
May 8, 2006
Page 4
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission considered this request at their meeting on April 19, 2006. The
Commission found that all of the requirements were satisfied and that there would be no
adverse effects associated with the request. Based on that determination, the report of staff
and testimony from the applicant, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 829-06, a
resolution recommending re-approval of the requested conditional use permit.
Public Notice:
Staff has sent notices to property owners within 350 feet of the Stampfle property and
published a copy of said notice in the April 26 edition of the New Brighton Mounds View
Bulletin. At this time, staff has not received any public feedback concerning the Stampfle
request.
Recommendation:
There have been no changes to the property, the plans or to the City Code which would
result in or necessitate denial of this requested reconsideration. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the CUP reconsideration. Resolution 6803 has been
drafted and is available for Council action if you so concur.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Site Plans
3. Photographic Documentation
4. City Council Resolution 5441
5. May 22, 2000 City Council Minutes Excerpt
6. Letter from Applicant
7. Planning Commission Resolution 829-06
8. Resolution 6803
Zoning Map
Photographic Documentation
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 829-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVER-SIZED GARAGE AT 2832 WOODALE
DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. CU00-004
WHEREAS, Thomas Stampfle has requested re-approval of an expired Conditional
Use Permit to construct a 1,248 square-foot garage in the side yard of his property located
at 2832 Woodale Drive, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally
described as follows:
Lot 92, Knollwood Park
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. Existing Site Plan
c. Proposed Site Plan
d. Photographic Documentation
e. Letter from Applicant, dated 4/6/00
f. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the applicant had received approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
from the City on May 22, 2000 however the CUP expired due to non-use; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is now prepared to move forward with the construction and
seeks re-approval of the CUP.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
makes the following findings of fact related to the reapproval 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 829-06
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
proposed garage would replace an older, structurally unsound garage with a
sagging roof.
5. The proposed oversized garage would be adequately screened by a privacy
fence, mature trees and a garage on the adjacent property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends re-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.
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. 6803
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RE-APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
OVER-SIZED GARAGE AT 2832 WOODALE DRIVE;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. CU00-004
WHEREAS, Thomas Stampfle has requested re-approval of an expired Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 1,248 square-foot garage in the side yard of his property
located at 2832 Woodale Drive, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally
described as follows:
Lot 92, Knollwood Park
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. Existing Site Plan
c. Proposed Site Plan
d. Photographic Documentation
e. Letter from Applicant, dated 4/6/00
f. Staff Report
g. Council Resolution 5441
h. Planning Commission 829-06
WHEREAS, the applicant had received approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
from the City on May 22, 2000 however the CUP expired due to non-use; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is now prepared to move forward with the construction and
seeks re-approval of the CUP.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council makes the
following findings of fact related to the reapproval 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 6803
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
proposed garage would replace an older, structurally unsound garage with a
sagging roof.
5. The proposed oversized garage would be adequately screened by a privacy
fence, mature trees and a garage on the adjacent property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View City
Council re-approves the conditional use permit with the following stipulations:
1. 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. 2. The garage shall be designed and maintained to be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the existing dwelling. 3. 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.
Adopted this 8th day of May, 2006.
_____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 7B
Meeting Date: May 8, 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. The Council amended the ordinance to
disallow billboards anywhere on County Road 10.
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.
At the April 3rd worksession, the Council reviewed the additional language relating to the
maximum number of billboards, which 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.
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 found 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.
Sign Code Ordinance Report
May 8, 2006
Page 2
Staff presented the ordinance revisions as well as a further amendment relating to the
duration of the lease periods for sake of consistency with the Relocation Agreement at the
April 24th City Council meeting. Much discussion ensued regarding the ordinance,
specifically relating to possibly reconsidering the disallowance of billboards on County Road
10. Ultimately the Council tabled action on the ordinance and asked that staff draft language
pertaining to design guidelines for the billboards.
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.
Design Guidelines. The City Council at the April 24th meeting expressed their desire to add
language to the ordinance which would require that certain design elements be incorporated
into any new or relocated billboard. Because staff had not drafted language relating to this
addition and because the Council had not seen the updated billboard design, the ordinance
was again tabled for future consideration. The new language is as follows:
i. Design Guidelines. Any new or relocated billboard to be erected in the City shall
incorporate design features consistent with the billboard design as approved by the
City Council.
This language provides for some flexibility in that the Council may ultimately determine what
is appropriate on a case by case basis, however Staff was unable to confirm whether the
Council had ever “formally” approved the revised billboard design. Two designs were
reviewed by the City Council at their worksession on Feb 2, 2004, one of which was selected
for the golf course. (Both designs appear on the following page.) Clear Channel suggests
the “golf ball” attachment and “Bridges” text be omitted from the approved design to be
constructed. The ordinance may move forward as presented, but the Council should
approve by a separate resolution the preferred design.
Finally, the issue of whether or not to allow billboards on County Road 10 will need to be
decided. If the Council determines that billboards may be permissible on County Road 10, it
should also make a determination as to the maximum height for any such billboard.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Billboard Designs (as presented Feb 2, 2004)
This was the design selected by the City Council
` 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 May 8, 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 Interstate 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)
i. Design Guidelines. Any new or relocated billboard to be erected in the City shall
incorporate design features consistent with the billboard design as approved by the
City Council.
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 8th day of May, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Approved as to form:
Mounds View City Attorney
Item No: 08A
Meeting Date May 8, 2006
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL
Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will
expire on December 31, 2006. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of
insurance. Those companies that are “new” include applicants that have never been licensed
with the City or they may have been licensed with the City in the past, but were not licensed in
2005. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2005.
The type of license they are applying for follows the company name.
North Star Fence Fence Renewal
Top Line Fence Fence New
DNR Construction General (Commercial) New
Drobnick’s Tree Service Tree Trimming/Removal Renewal
Czars of Tar Asphalt Renewal
Horwitz, Inc. HVAC New
Earth Wizards Asphalt New
Watsons of Minneapolis, Inc. Swimming Pools New
Blacktop Driveway Co., Inc. Asphalt Renewal
Erlings Heating & Air Conditioning HVAC New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Item No: 08B
Meeting Date May 8, 2006
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree M. Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing Accepting Second Reading on Ordinance
772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Mounds View
City Charter
This Public Hearing will need to be rescheduled because the Public Hearing was
not published in time to make the 10 day publication notice as required. Please
read the attached email I sent to Jonathan Thomas for details. This public hearing
will be rescheduled for May 22nd at 7:05pm, and this public hearing has already
been submitted for publication.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
Item No. 8D
Meeting Date: May 8, 2006
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
Administrator Review:___
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6810 Approving Change Orders No. 18
and 19 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project
Background:
In September of 2005, when the City awarded the construction contract for the
City Hall Project, it was stated that with a project of this nature, it is inevitable that
there will need to be minor adjustments to the scope of the project. These
adjustments are a necessary way to ensure that this project is completed in a
timely manner and that the City gets the maximum benefit from this project.
On February 13, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6736 authorizing
Change Orders No. 1 through 3 and authorized a contract for network cabling.
On February 27, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6757 authorizing
Change Orders No. 4 through 6 and authorized initiation of HVAC changes.
On March 13, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6771 authorizing
Change Orders No. 7 through 10.
On March 13, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6784 authorizing
Change Orders No. 11 through 17.
Discussion
Adjustments recommended during construction are referred to as Architectural
Supplemental Information (ASI’s). These are common in all architectural projects
and are even more prevalent in re-model projects. Many of these items are
simple adjustments that do not require additional work from the contractor. These
are noted as “NC” – no charge. Other adjustments may include additional
materials or labor and are listed as an additional cost, while other ASI’s may
include a credit in cases where materials or labor that were included in the
original contract are no longer necessary.
There are two ASI items for which we currently have prices/credits and their
associated Change Orders have been submitted:
Change Order No. 18
ASI-44: in the amount of $6,021.00. This ASI represents the addition of an
overhead coiling steel door at the back Administration and Public Works counter.
Similar to the coiling steel door that was installed at the front desk area, this door
is needed to secure this area after hours. As an oversight, this item was not
included in the original bidding documents.
Change Order No. 19
ASI-NA: in the amount of $.00. This is for changing the completion date. This
was necessary to allow for additional work on the HVAC system. There is no cost
associated with this change order.
City Hall Rehabilitation Project Budget
The Special Projects Fund, as per the 2005 budget (Account No. 280-4160-
7050), has $1,600,000 budgeted for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project.
Change Order 18 and 19 are consistent with the projected change order
summary included in the March 13, 2006 Staff report. The total amount of all
change orders for this project is still estimated to be $94,751.00.
The following is a summary of the estimated final cost of this project:
City Hall Rehabilitation Cost Items
Construction Contract $1,185,000
Construction Services $46,000
Change Orders $94,751
Grading Contractor $5,500
Vegetation Establishment / Landscape Contractor $7,500
Part time / Temporary employee (did not do –was $5800) $0
Re-Settlement Work $3,000
Furniture Budget $61,525
Furniture contract adjustment 2/27/2006 $2,104
Moving contractor $20,000
Police Office Space Rental $0
Interior Decorations / Pictures $3,000
Community Center Rental $40,000
Estimated Total $1,468,380
Recommendation:
It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution approving Change
Order No. 18 and 19 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6810
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS NO. 18 AND 19 FOR THE CITY HALL
REHABILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, in September of 2005, the City awarded the
construction contract for the City Hall Project; and
WHEREAS, unforeseen circumstances may arise from time to time
that will necessitate minor adjustments and changes in the original construction
plan; and
WHEREAS, there are two items for which we currently have prices
and associated change orders have been submitted; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 18, ASI-44: in the amount of
$6,021.00, represents the addition of an overhead coiling steel door at the back
Administration and Public Works counter; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 19, ASI-NA: in the amount of $0.00,
is for changing the completion date; this was necessary to allow for additional
work on the HVAC; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that funds to finance change orders
No. 18 and 19 be derived from the Special Project Account for the City Hall
Project (account: 280-4180-7050-100).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That Change Orders No. 18 and 19 for the City Hall Rehabilitation
Project are hereby approved.
2. Execution of said documents is hereby authorized.
3. That said Change Orders shall be financed with funds derived from the
Special Project Account for this Project (Account: 280-4180-7050-100).
Adopted this 8th day of May 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 8E
Meeting Date: May 8, 2006
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6809 Acceptance and Final Payment
Approval for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption
(EVP) Installation Project
Background:
On September 26, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution 6601 awarding a
construction contract to Eagan Companies, Incorporated in the amount of
$59,500.00 for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project.
Discussion:
Eagan Companies, Incorporated has requested the City’s acceptance and final
payment for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project. All
work has been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the plans and
specifications.
The necessary contract documents have been provided (See attached letter from
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates (BRAA)).
The original contract amount was $59,500.00. The final contract cost is
$59,822.77, and the final payment amount is $21,511.29.
As noted in the letter from BRAA, there was an additional cost of $322.77 for the
cost to replace the existing cable. Details are included in the letter.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting
the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project and authorizing
final payment to Eagan Companies, Incorporated in the amount of $21,511.29.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6809
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ACCEPTING THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION (EVP)
INSTALLATION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT
WHEREAS, Eagan Companies, Incorporated has requested the
City’s acceptance and final payment for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption
(EVP) Installation Project; and
WHEREAS, all work has been satisfactorily completed in
accordance with the plans and specifications; and
WHEREAS, the original contract amount was $59,500.00, the final
contract cost is $59,822.77, and the final payment amount is $21,511.29.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. Accepts the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project.
2. Authorizes final payment in the amount of $21,511.29 to Eagan
Companies, Incorporated.
3. Authorizes the Public Works Director to execute said final payment
request document.
Adopted this 8th day of May 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
RESOLUTION 6806
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
PROCLAIMING MAY 9, 2006 AS “ARBOR DAY”
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has been recognized for twenty-
four consecutive years as Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation
for its efforts in urban forestry; and
WHEREAS, trees in our City beautify our surroundings, shade our parks
and residences, increase property values and enhance the economic vitality of
business areas, and
WHEREAS, neighbors and concerned citizens will be planting trees at
Lambert Park; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that May 9, 2006, be declared
Arbor Day in Mounds View and public-spirited and foresighted citizens be called
upon to assist in the planting of trees now for the use and enjoyment of present
and future generations.
Adopted this 8th day of May, 2006
___________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, Clerk/Administrator
(seal)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
April 24, 2006 6
New Brighton City Hall 7
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: None. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, April 24, 2006 City Council Agenda 22
23
Mayor Marty suggested adding Item 11C under Reports of City Attorney to Council Business as 24
Item 7K. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Monday, April 24, 2006 agenda as 27
amended. 28
29
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 30
31
5. PUBLIC INPUT 32
33
Mayor Marty reminded citizens of the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting that will be held on 34
Saturday, April 29, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 35
36
Doris Heilman, 3034 Ardmore Avenue, stated there was an accident on Highway 10 on Saturday 37
afternoon. She stated she has gone from being angry and disgusted that it has happened again, to 38
being very sad for the child and the family. She states she is haunted by the phone call she 39
received on February 20, 2000, when her son, Brandon, was hit and killed there. 40
41
Ms. Heilman stressed there is a severe waning lack of awareness about how dangerous the road is 42
for kids. She indicated that right after Brandon’s accident, the schools were teaching kids how to 43
properly cross the highway, but she stated that she made telephone calls to the schools, and found 44
out that this stopped a couple of years ago and there is only some general discussion about it in 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
health class. She stressed that this is not enough. She stated the City has a DARE officer and a 1
Community Resource Officer that could visit the school to teach children about road safety, if the 2
school does not have the personnel, the knowledge or the education to conduct the training. She 3
noted it cannot be that expensive to send an officer one morning to the school to provide training. 4
5
Ms. Heilman stated the question of how does one cross the road was asked today, and Brandon’s 6
father was told that one should run as fast as one can before the light changes. She stated that 7
according to what was learned in February 2000, one should travel half ways across the road 8
when the light first changes, and then wait in the middle of the road until the light changes again. 9
She stated there is a basic lack of understanding on how to cross the road. She stressed this 10
should not have happened the first or second time, and although the second time was not as tragic 11
as her son’s accident, that there should not be a third time. 12
13
Mayor Marty asked Deputy Chief Tom Kinney to provide a brief run down of what happened. 14
15
Deputy Chief Kinney stated the Mounds View Police Department responded to a traffic accident 16
at 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, April 22, 2006, at County Road 10 and Edgewood Drive. He stated an 17
eleven year old bicyclist was struck by a vehicle and taken to the hospital. He explained the 18
accident is still under review and investigation by the State Patrol, so the details cannot be 19
released. He explained the Police Department assisted with providing traffic control and with the 20
witness statements. He stated there is an incident report available, but the accident itself is being 21
handled by the State Patrol. He added there will be a reconstruction due to the severity of the 22
injury to the child. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated that one thing that should be mentioned is that there was a 25
significant problem with the timing of the lights, and explained that the lights were recently re-26
timed so one can get all the way across by pressing the button. She stated that children need to 27
be educated on how to properly cross the street. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated the re-timing of the lights with the crosswalks was the first safety issue that 30
was addressed on County Highway 10, and the City will be moving on with it. 31
32
Mike Sympanski, 2385 ____ Drive, stated it is an unfortunate situation of what happened on 33
County Road 10. He stated the Council is considering placement of additional billboards or 34
taking the movement of the billboards over. He wondered how many millions of dollars will be 35
spent on the upgrading and the beautification of County Road 10. He stated the Council is 36
talking about approving placement of billboards on County Road 10. He stated that is absolutely 37
ludicrous. He stressed billboards should have never been allowed in Mounds View, and they 38
should not be allowed now. Mr. Sympanski stated he does not like looking at billboards, and no 39
one should have to look at them. He stated if the billboards are placed where no one in their 40
homes can see them and not on County Road 10. 41
42
Mr. Sympanski added that he would like the Council to update the public on a regular basis as to 43
what is going on with the sound wall. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
Mayor Marty asked Economic Development Coordinator Backman for an update on the matter. 1
2
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that it is a priority for the Council and the 3
City has been trying to work with the legislature on this issue. He stated there was a hearing on 4
April 11, 2006, where the City tried to get it amended on to the Omnibus Transportation bill on 5
the Senate side, but the City was not able to do it. He stated it is difficult at that juncture, 6
because the chairs are marshalling those omnibus bills through the process. He stated that 7
recognition has been received from the different entities that this is an important issue. 8
9
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that because it is a bonding year, the budge 10
targets do not allow for a project of this amount to move forward at this time. He noted that the 11
target for the transportation bill on the House is a modest $750,000. He stated that all operating 12
agencies and stakeholders will continue to work on the components of the noise wall extension 13
and the design concept extension on I-35W area from Lexington Avenue to 694. He thanked 14
Representative Bernardy and Senator Betzold for their time and efforts on behalf of the Coalition 15
and the City on this issue. 16
17
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he attended a meeting on April 18, 18
2006 at the Capitol with all of the entities, where the legislation and the status of things were 19
discussed. He explained the consensus was that this issue should be addressed at the next 20
session, and work should be started earlier in this process. He explained the issue continues to 21
have the support of Medtronic and the other players that want to see the sound wall. He stated it 22
is a priority for the City, and pointed out that the City has not forgotten about this issue, but the 23
financial realities at the Capitol have to be recognized. 24
25
Mayor Marty pointed out that Economic Development Coordinator Backman related to him last 26
week that MnDOT is on board with the City and is supporting this issue, and that carries a lot of 27
weight. He stated in the past, the City has tried to drag MnDOT along to get it done, but this 28
time they are in support of this project. 29
30
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that with luck in the process, the project 31
could be underway in 2007. 32
33
Councilmember Flaherty asked Deputy Chief Kinney about the traffic safety training by the 34
DARE Officer. Councilmember Thomas stated the school was doing it. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty agreed with Ms. Heilman that children should be shown how to 37
correctly cross the street and about traffic safety in general. He wondered if the City can contact 38
the school to get the program rolling again. City Administrator Ulrich stated he would look into 39
that. 40
41
Councilmember Gunn recalled that an actual light was brought into the school and the children 42
were taught how to push the button and how to wait for the light to change. She could not recall 43
who was doing the training. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
Deputy Chief Kinney stated the Ramsey County Sheriff Department has been fairly active with 1
school safety patrol and education. He stated more effort can be put forth to educate children 2
about traffic safety, and it would certainly not take a lot of time or effort. He stated a DARE 3
officer or a School Resource Officer can invest some effort into it. He stated the Police 4
Department would make an effort to provide education. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated that after Brandon’s accident in 2000, there was a concerted effort in the 7
schools for two to three years to provide education, and it is now too bad that something like this 8
has to wake up the community to keep it going in the curriculum. He stated this education is 9
definitely called for. 10
11
Councilmember Flaherty stated he received calls from residents around the area about jake 12
braking around the corners of Highway 610. He asked if the City can look into putting up signs 13
that say “no jake braking” until the sound wall is in place. He commented that he does 14
understand that enforcement is a different subject. 15
16
Mayor Marty stated he would like to see no jake braking in and around Mounds View, and noted 17
this issue has been discussed for years. 18
19
Mr. Sympanski stated that four or five years ago, there was approval to put signage up, but it 20
could not be called jake braking due to some legal issues. He stated the signs never appeared, 21
and added that it would require the Mounds View Police Department to periodically patrol it. He 22
commented that he sees the Blaine Police Department on County Road 10 stopping people and 23
unfortunately, he does not see the Mounds View Police Department out there. He stated he 24
thought this was approved a long time ago, but he has still not seen the signs. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated that Jacobs Company made that type of equipment, but they are not the only 27
ones. He indicated that since then, there have been some signs erected that say noise ordinances 28
are enforced on County Road I. He stated that controls should be placed on County Road 10 as 29
well as on City streets because it is a problem. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney recalled the discussion of signs for jake braking, but noted that the City 32
has no control for putting signs on a State highway. 33
34
Mr. Sympanski recalled that the State representative agreed that the signs could be put up if the 35
City asked for them. 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty indicated that the City would have to put the signs up and would need 38
to go through MnDOT. 39
40
Director of Public Works Lee explained that MnDOT will allow signs on the right-of-way, but it 41
has to be an official request by the City and the City has to pay for and enforce the signs. 42
43
City Administrator Ulrich noted this matter would be placed on the work session agenda. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 1
2
A. Resolution 6798, A Resolution of Appreciation for Stan McDonald for over 3
four years of dedicated service with the Mounds View Economic 4
Development Commission (EDC). 5
6
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/STIGNEY. To approve Resolution 6798, A Resolution of 7
Appreciation for Stan McDonald for over four years of dedicated service with the Mounds View 8
Economic Development Commission (EDC). 9
10
Mayor Marty stated he wished Mr. McDonald was here tonight to present the Resolution to him 11
personally. Mayor Marty stated he first met Mr. McDonald when he was a Council liaison to the 12
Park and Recreation Commission, and indicated Mr. McDonald has contributed quite a bit to the 13
community. 14
15
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 16
17
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 18
19
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for 20
an Over-size Garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road. 21
22
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the applicants, Don and Diane Balk, 23
are building a new home and would like to expand the garage to 1,062 square feet in order to 24
park their recreational vehicle inside. He explained that the maximum sized garage permissible 25
without a conditional use permit is 952 square feet. 26
27
Director Ericson stated that all the setbacks and maximum square footage requirements of the 28
conditional use permit is satisfied with this proposal. He stated that all possible adverse effects 29
of the proposed conditional use were considered, and there does not appear to be any adverse 30
effects. 31
32
Director Ericson explained that the home is two stories, and the home is taller than the garage. 33
He stated the garage was designed to be incorporated into the home itself, and it is well designed 34
so that it fits in and blends in with the homes and other homes in the area. 35
36
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. 37
38
Robert Ringdahl, 8485 Sunnyside Road, stated he lives in the house right next to the proposed 39
garage, and commented that it is quite a big garage and it is close to the property line. 40
41
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 42
43
Mayor Marty stated that a number of years ago, there was an individual that wanted to build a 44
garage to use for parking a recreational vehicle instead of having it sit in the driveway for the 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
summer. He explained the City gave permission for that and the neighbors had some concerns 1
over size of the garage, but once the garage was there and the resident was able to pull the 2
recreational vehicle in, the neighbors felt much happier about it. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated it is a big garage, and wondered if the applicant had made sure that the 5
garage door is high enough to park the recreational vehicle in. 6
7
Mr. Don Balk, 8478 Long Lake Road, stated it took three tries before the architectural drawings 8
were accurate so that the recreational vehicle could clear the garage door, but they have 9
confirmed that it will work for the intended purpose. 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve a Conditional Use 12
Permit for an Over-size Garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road. 13
14
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 15
16
B. Resolution 6794 Approving the Final Plat and Development Agreement for 17
the Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision. 18
19
Planning Associate Heller explained that Dan Saplis Inc. has submitted an application for a 20
major subdivision of parcels on the north side of Woodale Drive. The proposed Hidden Hollow 21
South subdivision would create six buildable lots from the existing two lots. 22
23
Planning Associate Heller stated that the Council approved the preliminary plat on February 27, 24
2006, and the final plat is very similar. She stated there were some enlargement of some 25
easements, as well as adjustments of the roadway placement three feet to the east due to existing 26
manholes. She stated these changes are reflected in the final plat. 27
28
Planning Associate Heller showed a picture of the model home that will be built first, and 29
explained it is 3,400 square feet finished with an additional 1,500 square feet unfinished 30
basement. She stated this development is a nice compliment to the Hidden Hollow project to the 31
north. 32
33
Mayor Marty asked if there were two garages. Planning Associate Heller explained that there is 34
a three car garage. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty commented that he was really happy to see that the City Forrester went 37
out to the site to determine if there were any trees that could be saved. He noted that the City 38
Forrester indicated that there were not any trees of value on the site. 39
40
Mayor Marty commented that the City Forrest indicated that vegetation is located in the front and 41
west sides of property. Planning Associated Heller stated that most of it would have to be 42
removed for the street placement, but Staff wanted the City Forrester to go in and see if there was 43
anything else to save. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mayor Marty stated that he received a couple of comments from residents about the naming of 1
the new cul-de-sac as Pleasant View Drive. He stated that Pleasant View Drive continues on to 2
the north and continues on to the south and is disjointed for a couple of blocks. He stated there 3
may be confusion for people following Pleasant View Drive. He wondered if there is any reason 4
to call it Pleasant View Drive. 5
6
Planning Associated Heller suggested it could be named Pleasant View Circle. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 9
6794 Approving the Final Plat and Development Agreement for the Hidden Hollow South Major 10
Subdivision. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney asked if the street construction costs will be covered by the 13
development. Planning Associate Heller stated it would. 14
15
Director Ericson asked for direction on the street name. The Council agreed it should be named 16
Pleasant View Circle. 17
18
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked for clarification that the existing street would not 19
be renamed, and only the extension running north and south would be renamed. The Council 20
indicated that was correct. 21
22
Mayor Marty asked if there is going to be a trailway along the western border that is north of 23
Hidden Hollow South where the City easement is. Planning Associate Heller stated it would be 24
an access trail. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
C. First Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the 29
City Charter. 30
31
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained on April 18, 2006, the Mounds View 32
Charter Commission adopted Resolution 2006-05, which put forward suggested amendments to 33
the Charter in Chapter 7 relating to “Taxation and Finances”. She noted that these amendments 34
were discussed at the April 18, 2006 Special Work Session between the Mounds View Charter 35
Commission and the City Council. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and approve the Introduction 38
and First Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Charter. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated that he thought the whole Section 7 should have been before the 41
Council instead of doing it in pieces. 42
43
Councilmember Flaherty commented that the joint meeting between the Council and Charter 44
Commission was amiable and productive. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
1
Mr. Amundsen wondered if the Council wanted to talk about the objectives of the Code change. 2
He stated it is important that the timeline is inserted so that the general public can pull up the 3
Charter and actually look at the timeline of how the budgeting goes. He stated if residents want 4
to be involved in the budget process, they need to start thinking about it now because public 5
input needs to be received by June. He stated he likes the timeline piece of the language the best 6
that provides an outline for the public to understand. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated that this has been discussed at numerous meetings, but it is a good point to 9
refresh the public on. 10
11
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 12
13
D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 771, an Ordinance Amending 14
Chapters 502 and 503 of the Municipal Code relating to Liquor Licenses. 15
16
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the first proposed amendment changes 17
the code to require that a public hearing be conducted for every new, transferred or renewed 18
license. He noted this change is recommended based on feedback from residents who would 19
have wanted to provide input during license renewals. 20
21
Director Ericson explained that the second proposed amendment would allow liquor license 22
facilities to offer outdoor seating in association with their establishment. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve the Second Reading 25
and Adoption of Ordinance 771, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 502 and 503 of the Municipal 26
Code relating to Liquor Licenses. 27
28
Director Ericson asked if the motion authorizes Staff to publish the ordinance summary. Mayor 29
Marty indicated it does. 30
31
ROLL CALL VOTE: 32
33
Mayor Marty Aye 34
Councilmember Flaherty Aye 35
Councilmember Gunn Aye 36
Councilmember Stigney Aye 37
Councilmember Thomas Aye 38
39
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 40
41
E. Consideration of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of 42
the Municipal Code relating to Signs and Billboards. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mayor Marty stated that Staff has been working on some questions for an informal survey to be 1
handed out at the upcoming Town Hall Meeting that will be held on Saturday, April 29, 2006. 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich explained the list of possible questions is a draft version. 4
5
Mayor Marty confirmed that one of the survey questions relates to signs and billboards. City 6
Administrator Ulrich indicated that is correct. 7
8
Mayor Marty asked how the question reads. City Administrator Ulrich handed out the draft 9
questions to the Council. He explained the question reads, “Discussion regarding the relocation 10
of billboards in the community is ongoing and consideration is being given to alternative 11
locations. Which locations do you feel are appropriate for billboards? Check all that apply: US 12
Highway 10, County Highway 10, Old Highway 8, I-35W, Other”. He stated it is a general 13
survey question to find out where people feel billboards would be appropriate. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated that if the Council votes on this issue, then the question could be stricken 16
from the survey. He stated he would like to get a straw poll of residents at the Town Hall 17
Meeting. He suggested postponing the final decision until the survey results are received. He 18
mentioned he has heard from some residents on this issue, and thought the City might be able to 19
get more opinions from residents that attend the Town Hall Meeting. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney stated that his mind is made up regardless of the Town Hall Meeting. 22
He stated it is not a good idea to put billboards on County Highway 10. 23
24
Councilmember Flaherty stated his mind is not made up, and he certainly would welcome public 25
input. He stated that throughout the negotiations with Medtronic, the City had a “good faith 26
agreement” and the location south of Woodale Drive was mentioned more than one time. He 27
stated it would be disingenuous to them to remove it from the table. He stated he is looking for 28
more input. He stated he wants to ask Clear Channel what they are planning in that location and 29
that he would like to see a rendering. He indicated he would also like to have information from 30
the business owners around the area for their feelings on what will happen. 31
32
Councilmember Flaherty stated this is in the heart of the business community, and there are no 33
homes on the front or back of the location south of Woodale Drive. 34
35
Councilmember Gunn noted that Mr. Dan Hall is present, and that he volunteered the Mermaid 36
as a site for a billboard. 37
38
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated that he cannot give the exact date that it started to look like 39
the Medtronic project would go through, but he was approached three people on the City Council 40
or City Staff to see if he would be interested in having a billboard on his property. Mr. Hall 41
indicated that he was interested, so he contacted Clear Channel in good faith. He stated it has 42
been approximately ten months since conversations were begun with Clear Channel. He 43
indicated he has spent $10,000 and has been under contract with Clear Channel since February 44
15 in several renditions, because he had input from the representatives from the City of Mounds 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
View looking for places to put billboards. He stated he is in the business district with light and 1
heavy industrial properties, and no residential properties. He stated Mounds View is one of the 2
last cities with outside storage, and this is the type of area that billboards are supposed to be in to 3
support the business community. 4
5
Mr. Hall stated that when Mounds View was first conceived, it was too bad that the City was 6
split in half over a four lane county highway. He stated that what is there and what needs to be 7
there needs to be looked at. He stated he has gone through a great expense already, and that it is 8
rather disingenuous of the City to sit back and see what the residents want. He wondered why 9
the question does not say if an option is not selected for a billboard site, then it will cost 10
$850,000 in taxes for the City of Mounds View. He stated the ramifications need to be explained 11
as well, not just where would residents would or would not like billboards. 12
13
Mr. Hall stated the City has done a wonderful job in putting off this issue month after month. He 14
stated Medtronic is moving in. He asked where the good faith estimate is in letting Clear 15
Channel pick and choose spots for the billboards. He stated by not allowing billboards on 16
County Road 10, it is closing down 99 percent of the City of Mounds View to Clear Channel. He 17
stated Medtronic is not going to pay for it, and that the City of Mounds View will fork out 18
$850,000 per site. 19
20
Mr. Hall stated before a straw poll is done, the City needs to look at what was said to Medtronic, 21
what was said to Clear Channel, and what was said to him. He stated he started to look at 22
billboards and now the City is saying that it is not going to be good for his business. He stated 23
the City is taking revenue from two billboards between Sysco and Medtronic. He stated the City 24
is putting itself above private business. He stated he has a right to have billboards on his 25
property. He stressed he was asked by the City and worked out a good faith agreement with 26
Clear Channel. He stated this matter should be voted on tonight, and not be postponed any 27
longer. He stated it is costing grief and money for people. 28
29
Councilmember Thomas stated she hates billboards, and she can see billboards from where she 30
lives behind the Community Center. She stated this is not something she wants to see, and noted 31
she has been on record to protect the residents from what they can see from their homes. She 32
stated commercial areas are appropriate areas for billboards. She stated the need to protect 33
residential areas should be reflected in the Ordinance. She stated she knows how she is going to 34
vote. She stated the question is not appropriate to ask residents. She indicated that after looking 35
at the language for six weeks, she does not see what she would like to yet. 36
37
Tom McCarver, Clear Channel, stated that Clear Channel has made good faith estimates with the 38
City. He stated the economics are not the same as on I-35 and County Road 10. He stated that 39
he spoke with Mr. Hall to rework a deal that is financially viable, realizing what the City issues 40
are. 41
42
Mr. McCarver stated that in regard to Councilmember Thomas’s issue with billboards in general, 43
he indicated that the poles will be wrapped as much as possible, which is not a contractual 44
obligation, but it can be done at considerable cost to Clear Channel. He stated he spoke with Mr. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
Hall about this. He stated he would like this matter resolved, and he was under the impression 1
that there would be a vote tonight. He stressed that Clear Channel has been working as hard as 2
possible to come up with a solution to please the City. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty asked for a rendering of what the billboard will look like. Mr. 5
McCarver stated he would try to do that. 6
7
Councilmember Stigney commented that at the last Council meeting, the Ordinance was 8
approved and then reconsidered because the number of billboards within the City was not 9
restricted. 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and approve Ordinance 769, 12
an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to Signs and Billboards. 13
14
Councilmember Stigney commented that this is a 30 year proposition and it is inappropriate to 15
have billboards on County Road 10 as one enters into the City. He stated the relocation meant 16
that the City would need to come up with alternate locations to put billboards in. He recalled that 17
City Administrator Ulrich indicated at the last meeting that the City has provided ample space in 18
which to relocate the billboards. He noted that if billboards were not such an eyesore, then 19
Medtronic would have kept them. He stated he had a problem with the past language that gave 20
preferential treatment to the Mermaid only. He stated it is best for the long term to keep 21
billboards off County Road 10, and that is how the Ordinance currently reads. 22
23
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To amend the Ordinance in regard to 24
Subdivision 6, Section 9, Item B, relating to location (and any other parts that need to be 25
adjusted), to remove Old Highway 8 and insert County Highway 10 south of Woodale Drive at 26
the entrance to Mounds View in the commercial area only. 27
28
Councilmember Stigney stated this is the opposite of what the City should be doing. He stated 29
for the next 30 years, the Mermaid will have up to two signs on County Road 10 to the exclusion 30
of any other place. 31
32
Mr. McCarver explained one sign is proposed. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney stated the Ordinance does not limit it to one sign. He stated billboards 35
do not belong on County Road 10. He stressed the City is going to spend money to beautify the 36
area, and now there will be billboards for the next 30 years for the preferential treatment of the 37
Mermaid only. 38
39
City Administrator Ulrich noted that there is a spacing requirement of 500 feet. He wondered 40
what the frontage is on Highway 10. Director Ericson stated he could not answer as to the length 41
between County Road H north to the Mermaid property. 42
43
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
Mr. Hall indicated he is not asking for two billboards on his property. He stated he is asking for 1
one billboard. He stated he would not have a problem in changing the Ordinance to read one 2
billboard per property owner (unless it is the City of Mounds View). 3
4
Councilmember Stigney stated that with a spacing requirement of 500 feet, it is possible that 5
there would only be one billboard. He stated that the amendment is to allow billboards on 6
County Road 10 and take them off Highway 8. He stated the Council needs to deals with it and 7
not the residents. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated that the billboard height limit in this Ordinance is not to exceed 45 feet. He 10
stated there would be a 45 foot billboard in town. He noted that in the past, there have been 11
discussions about billboard height of 35 feet in Mounds View and 45 feet along I-35W. He 12
stated this Ordinance is not amending the height requirements, so a billboard could be up to 45 13
feet right in town. 14
15
Mayor Marty indicated that he spoke with the residents that live on Old Highway 8, and noted 16
that they did not seem to be as concerned with billboards along the Old Highway 8. He noted it 17
is mostly public land except for Townsedge Terrace, and that would be up to Mr. Toberman. He 18
stated farther south, there is the possible reuse of the site of the Skyline Motel. He explained 19
Townsedge Terrace is down the hill from the Skyline Motel. He stated that unless there is a 20
billboard placed at the Townsedge Terrace entrance or on the Skyline Motel property, he does 21
not see it affecting the residents in the area. 22
23
Mayor Marty noted that he is concerned about billboards placed along County Highway 10, 24
because the City is trying to create a boulevard look with landscaping, lighted trailways, and a 25
City monument to beautify the area. He stressed that having billboards erected for 30 years is 26
totally contrary to the boulevard look. He stated the Comp Plan designates the area as business 27
light industrial, and while it is the business district, it is also the entrance to Mounds View. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated he received calls from residents about the signs that are there now, but they 30
are signs that represent the actual businesses that are there. He pointed out that anything can go 31
up on a billboard. He noted that when the City controlled the now-Medtronic property, the City 32
had control over what types of advertisements would be on the billboards, but in this case there 33
would be no control over the content of the billboards, and Clear Channel would have control 34
over what would be on the billboards. 35
36
Mayor Marty pointed out that billboards were used by the City to try and keep the taxpayers of 37
Mounds View from having to pay taxes to support the golf course. Mayor Marty stated that the 38
City got a good deal with Clear Channel, which would have paid off the golf course and left the 39
City with several million left over. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated it is his understanding after talking with City Staff, that the City is providing 42
adequate sites along Old Highway 8, US Highway 10 and I-35W for the number of billboards 43
that need to be relocated. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
Mayor Marty stated that the first time the Ordinance was read and approved, County Highway 10 1
was removed because it was brought to the Council’s attention that there were enough land and 2
sites available without using County Highway 10. He explained the Ordinance was only 3
reconsidered to look into limiting the amount of billboards in the City, because it could end up 4
with several billboards. 5
6
Mayor Marty stressed that billboards need to be kept out of the corridor to achieve the boulevard 7
look. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas stated that the City is not done with the Medtronic project. She stated 10
this is about the Council doing its job. She stated if the Council pursues a concept of limitation 11
for sites that are appropriate for uses, the Council is not doing due diligence. She commented 12
that she feels a significant effort needs to be made to correct that. She indicated that the City 13
agreed to put up six billboards, and the City would find places to put them as a result of the 14
agreement with Clear Channel. She stressed that the City needs to stick to agreements that were 15
made in the past. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney stated the Council is not supposed to find sites, but rather provide 18
zoning on where the signs could go. He stated if Clear Channel is unable to negotiate site 19
locations, Medtronic agreed it would buy out two billboards in Phase 1, and the other two in 20
Phase 2. 21
22
Councilmember Stigney asked City Administrator Ulrich if adequate and ample space for the 23
billboard site locations have been provided by the City of Mounds View with the Ordinance as it 24
now reads. City Administrator Ulrich replied that if one looks strictly at the amount of space 25
available in the zones designated, there are areas where billboards can be located. He stated the 26
question is if they are acceptable with Clear Channel. He pointed out that the contract reads that 27
Clear Channel has the ultimate rejection authority, and can reject any location that the City 28
comes up with. He explained the City has to designate areas within the City. He stated that 29
based on footage, there are available sites. 30
31
City Attorney Riggs stated that the agreement with Clear Channel and Medtronic took many 32
months to finalize, and the agreement states that there is the ability of Clear Channel to reject 33
sites. He pointed out that the sites have to be workable. He stated there may be locations that a 34
sign may be able to be erected, but there may be no parties interested in doing that. He explained 35
the long term negotiations with both parties require the City to assist with where the signs can go 36
and where they are allowed in the City. He stated there are certain provisions that the City has to 37
fall back that are protections for the City, and some is open to discussion. He stated if there are 38
four sites approved and they are not workable, the City is not out of the woods. He explained it 39
is the Council’s policy and determination to decide where the signs go. He indicated Staff will 40
work with Medtronic and Clear Channel to see what locations work. He noted that City still has 41
more than 18 months to deal with the issue since there is a two year time period for the signs to 42
be moved. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the one site along Highway 10 is the first interest in a 1
specific sign other than the Sysco discussion. He stated there has not been specific action on the 2
sign permit and necessary approvals for I-35W or Old Highway 8. He stated the City has some 3
discretion on where signs are allowed, and that the City should look at where the signs might best 4
fit. He noted that because this is the first indication of a permit, the City has not gone down the 5
road of approving one specific site anywhere within the City. 6
7
City Administrator Ulrich stated the City is already looking at different locations outside of the 8
major thoroughfares and putting them on County Road 10. He stated that in earlier discussions 9
with the Council, it was determined that County Road 10 is not an ideal location. He stated if 10
billboards were on Highway 10, they would be down near the business end. 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich pointed out there was some indication given to the business owner that 13
it would be a possibility, but it was premised on the fact that the City would have some design 14
control. He pointed out the City has not seen renderings on how the sign will look. He stated 15
this important if it is expanded to this location. He stated the City will have enough control to 16
dictate how it will look and that it will be a benefit to the City and not a determent. 17
18
City Attorney Riggs added that the situation has a lot of unknowns and it was his understanding 19
that the City would have a better idea of where the signs could go. He indicated this is the first 20
sign that someone has indicated where the sign will go. He stated this somewhat ties the hands 21
of the Council to make an informed decision to impose as policy. He noted the Ordinance may 22
be coming back based on where other potential possible sites may be. 23
24
Councilmember Flaherty stated that one of the issues he has is the integrity of the City. He 25
mentioned this goes back to the deal made with Clear Channel to offset the costs of the golf 26
course. He stated a better deal came along for the City, and the City promised Clear Channel that 27
it would create a workable deal to get out of their contracts. He stated the City reneged on the 28
contract with Clear Channel. Councilmember Flaherty stated that when Phase 1 started, and it 29
would be possibly under the City dollars to relocate the sign, clearly the location Mr. Hall is 30
talking about was in there as a possible location. He stated as Phase 2 came up, the attitude is 31
that Medtronic will pay for it if the City does not. He noted Medtronic will not pay for it. He 32
stressed Medtronic is a brand new corporation that is moving into the City, and the City fought 33
dearly to have them come in, and to make the assumption that they will pay for it, is not starting 34
off on a very good foot with such a large neighbor. He stated the City so far has not been 100 35
percent honest with the way it is moving forward. He stated this particular site was open for 36
discussion when it was the City’s dollar, and now that Phase 2 has came along, it is off the able. 37
He stated that is disingenuous to Medtronic and the City needs to find a workable deal and work 38
in good faith with Clear Channel. 39
40
Councilmember Flaherty stressed that he would like to see a rendering, because no one knows 41
what it will look like. 42
43
Mr. Sympanski stated that Clear Channel is a billion dollar corporation, and if the City says no to 44
Clear Channel, they will find sites somewhere else. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
1
Mr. Sympanski stated other businesses will want a billboard on their property. He wondered 2
how much money the billboard would net per year. He wondered how many lawyers would be 3
trying to fight for billboards on other properties at $300,000 for 30 years. He urged the Council 4
to say no billboards on the entire corridor. 5
6
Mayor Marty noted that the City could set a precedent for other businesses on County Highway 7
10 to say that the City is giving preferential treatment to a specific business. 8
9
Mr. McCarver stated this is a “Cap and Replace” ordinance, which is in exchange to limit the 10
cap. He indicated this ordinance is used throughout the United States. He stated there is plenty 11
of case history and precedents that indicate it is perfectly fine to do this. He stated that all along 12
through the agreement, the intent of Clear Channel was to gain no more than what it has. 13
14
Mr. McCarver noted that he previously indicated that Clear Channel had three locations 15
including the Sysco site, one on I-35W and one on Mr. Hall’s property. He stated that Clear 16
Channel has still not found a workable fourth solution. He commented that during negotiations, 17
Old Highway 8 and County Road J do not work. He stated Clear Channel has been forthcoming 18
on where things can work and where they cannot. He stated if billboards have to be on County 19
Road 10, that the closer to I-35W, the better it would be for all parties. He stated most of County 20
Road 10 was thrown into mix, but it is not the ideal location. He noted that Clear Channel may 21
not be able to find a fourth workable solution. 22
23
Mr. McCarver stated he can supply a design rendering. He mentioned the three sites are happy to 24
use the construction standards and the standards could be added to the Ordinance. He noted that 25
it is the same framework as originally talked about with the only difference being the color of the 26
stone. He stated the renderings and construction standards could be attached to the permit 27
application. 28
29
Mr. McCarver stressed that Clear Channel is doing everything to fulfill its end of the agreement, 30
and he appreciates the comments about the spirited agreement and he feels that both sides have 31
worked fairly. 32
33
City Attorney Riggs stated that construction standards were based on the original proposal that 34
the City received, and were included in lease language. He suggested adopting additional 35
language to the Ordinance to make sure that is covered. 36
37
Mayor Marty stated this is another reason to postpone action to the first Council meeting in May 38
to get that language added, regardless where the billboards going. He noted this may delay the 39
issue for two weeks. He added he would like to find out residents’ comments from the Town 40
Hall Meeting on Saturday. 41
42
Mr. Hall pointed out the residents need to be informed about and understand the ramifications for 43
the decision. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
Director Ericson noted that Medtronic is asking the City to consider County Road 10 site 1
favorably consistent with their ideals of what would be working in good faith with Clear 2
Channel. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated that Medtronic did not want billboards in backyard but they think it is okay 5
for Mounds View to put them in its front yard. 6
7
Councilmember Gunn stated Medtronic has taken two billboards and suggested the City should 8
take one. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas noted that there is a willing private property owner. 11
12
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Marty, Stigney) Amendment Motion Carried. 13
14
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To amend the Ordinance to allow 15
billboards on the north side of County Road 10. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney suggested the billboards could be correlated to a Mounds View City 18
sign structure. He stated this would be fair to the businesses on the north side of County Road 19
10. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn stated that the amendment did not limit billboards to either side of the 22
highway. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated she was fine with billboards on either side. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated that the way the Ordinance reads is that there is a height limit of 45 feet in 27
any location, so that means there could be 45 foot billboards in town. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney stated that he assumed the language would be reverted back to where it 30
was before to the south side of County Road 10. He noted if the amendment covers both side of 31
County 10, it should be clarified. 32
33
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the purpose is to try to get this one site approved. He stated 34
that if this is approved, there should be no more billboards on Highway 10. He wondered what 35
can the Council do to do that. He stated he truly feels the Council had a good faith agreement 36
with numerous parties that the particular site would be open. He stated he feels that it was not 37
until Phase 2 when Medtronic stated they would pick up the cost if the billboards were not 38
relocated. He stated that when it is the City’s dime, the tune was changed. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated there was never any vote made by the Council to support that 41
position. He stated it is a bad deal to allow one billboard on the south side, and it makes it 42
doubly bad to allow on both sides. He stated Clear Channel now will be happy because they got 43
all of the sites. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mayor Marty stated in the first discussions about buying out or relocating billboards, he stated he 1
would like to keep them out of town. He stated they will be in the main business corridor of 2
Mounds View for 30 years. 3
4
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Flaherty, Marty, Stigney) 5
6
Amendment failed for lack of a majority. 7
8
Mayor Marty pointed out that the Ordinance states that billboards up to 45 feet in height are 9
allowed anywhere. 10
11
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To restrict the billboard height on 12
County Road 10 to 35 feet, and restrict billboard height of all other sites to 45 feet. 13
14
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Amendment motion carried. 15
16
Councilmember Gunn stated that the design elements need to be added to the Ordinance. 17
18
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To add the design elements to the 19
Ordinance. 20
21
Director Ericson indicated this would be added as Item I under Design Standards. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney stated that he would like to see a rendering, because the original concept 24
that was proposed for the golf course was quite a bit different than what was brought forward. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas stated that by putting this language it, it will require plans to be brought 27
to the Council when the billboard goes up. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney stated he does not know what the billboard looks like, so he cannot vote 30
for it. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated that when discussions were first held with Clear Channel, the Council did 33
not like having billboards. He commented that Clear Channel came to the City with cutting edge 34
billboards, and the City looked at four or five renditions. He noted that what the City ended up 35
with was not what the Council had previously authorized. He stated he would like to see the 36
renderings as to what is getting approved before the Ordinance is passed. 37
38
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Marty, Stigney) Amendment motion carried. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated that he no longer supports the original motion. He stated he 41
would like to get feedback from residents in regard to the location of the billboards. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and postpone indefinitely 44
Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to Signs 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
and Billboards. 1
2
Mayor Marty stated that everyone in Mounds View will be faced with this. He stated this was 3
posted as a topic for the Town Hall Meeting in the property owner and resident survey. He 4
indicated he would like to find out what the residents are feeling about this issue. 5
6
Councilmember Gunn stressed that all information needs to be provided to the residents in regard 7
to why this is being done, how this came about and what led up to it. She stated there is a lot of 8
information that they do not have. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas stated that this is mostly an excuse to put off the issue. She stated the 11
responsibility of the Council is to vote, and she commented that the Council makes a lot of 12
decisions that have a huge impact and it does not poll the community to see how they feel. She 13
stated that surveys are helpful but if every big decision was polled, the Council is not doing its 14
job. She stated she is not willing to try to do her job by the whims and breezes of a poll because 15
the results are always non-scientific. She stated she has heard from more than enough residents 16
to make a decision. She stressed that putting off the decision is irresponsible. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney stated that something as significant as putting billboards up on County 19
Road 10 for the next 30 years is something that warrants resident feedback. He stated the 20
Council should get resident feedback on all major issues. He stated it is the least the Council can 21
do is to postpone the decision. He stated it is a significant issue that needs additional attention, 22
and it is the Council’s responsibility to do that. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated that it was not a significant enough issue to postpone it before it 25
was changed in the first place. She stated the language that was changed was changed originally 26
in the first place. She indicated the Council has gone back and forth on this issue, and it has 27
always been the Council’s decision to make. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney stated that what was changed was to re-allow billboards on County 30
Road 10. 31
32
Councilmember Thomas stated that when the Ordinance was first brought to the Council, County 33
Road 10 was included, and it was taken out of the Ordinance at the last meeting, and tonight part 34
of it was put back in. 35
36
Mayor Marty agreed with Councilmember Stigney that this is a huge decision that will affect 37
everyone coming and going from Mounds View. He stated the Council makes hard decisions, 38
but it really hears about it when the decision is not the right one. He stressed residents to express 39
their opinions if they feel one way or the other, to let the Council know. He asked residents to 40
come to the Town Hall Meeting and let the City know they feel. He stressed this is a huge 41
decision that will go for 30 years. 42
43
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
Councilmember Flaherty stated he has no problem with public feedback on decision making, but 1
he does not believe the question as presented gives the entire scope of what the possibility is. He 2
stated he does not believe the question as it is stated should be on the Town Hall Survey. 3
4
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Flaherty, Gunn, Thomas) 5
6
Motion fails for lack of a majority. 7
8
Director Ericson asked if the reconsideration of the Ordinance requires that it goes back to the 9
First Reading. 10
11
City Attorney Riggs indicated the Charter is not clear on that issue, but the Council has discretion 12
in the Readings for decision making. He stated the Ordinance was reconsidered, and that pulls it 13
pulls it back to the First Reading. 14
15
Councilmember Stigney withdrew his original motion. 16
17
Mayor Marty withdraw his original second. 18
19
City Attorney Riggs stated that the withdrawals should have occurred at the time of the 20
amendments. 21
22
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To postpone Ordinance 769, an Ordinance 23
Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to Signs and Billboards, until the May 8, 24
2006, City Council meeting. 25
26
Councilmember Stigney asked Councilmember Flaherty what he expects to happen from now 27
until the next Council meeting. Councilmember Flaherty responded that input will be received at 28
the Town Hall Meeting, a rendering will be received, and it will be discussed at the work session. 29
He stated he feels it is warranted at this particular time. 30
31
Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council has already discussed this to a significant extent, 32
and that she does not believe there is any further information that can be deemed from the Town 33
Hall Meeting. She stated that she does not see that it actually changes anything. 34
35
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Gunn, Thomas) Motion carried. 36
37
Mayor Marty asked Mr. McCarver for the renderings as soon as possible. Mr. McCarver stated 38
he will try to do that although he has not made application, but the drawings could be put on 39
white paper. He suggested the previous renderings could be used. 40
41
Director Ericson stated they would be presented at the worksession. 42
43
Mr. Hall asked if the question will be reworded for the Town Hall Meeting. Mayor Marty 44
indicated that the questions are only a draft version. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
1
Mr. Hall stated that it would be a very daunting task to put all the information together on this 2
issue. 3
4
F. Resolution 6795, Step Increase for Nick Fleischhacker, Public Works. 5
6
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained a step wage increase adjustment is 7
recommended for Public Works employee Nick Fleischhacker that is consistent with the 8
Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6795, 11
Step Increase for Nick Fleischhacker, Public Works. 12
13
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 14
15
G. Resolution 6796, Approving the Mounds View City Job Descriptions. 16
17
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that Department Heads along with Staff 18
reviewed all descriptions within their department, to ensure that the Salary Compensation Report 19
and Pay Equity report to be done by Laumeyer & Associates is accurate. 20
21
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that a meeting will be held on May 4, 2006, 22
with all City employees and Laumeyer & Associates. 23
24
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane noted that many of the job descriptions had not been 25
updated since 1997, and some job descriptions have many revisions and corrections. 26
27
City Administrator Ulrich complimented Assistant to the City Administrator Crane for putting all 28
of the job descriptions together, and noted she spent many hours coordinating with Department 29
Heads to put the job descriptions together. He pointed out this is an accurate reflection of the 30
jobs being done. 31
32
Councilmember Stigney asked if it is the Council’s intent to go through the job descriptions one 33
by one, as he had several comments. He wondered if comments should be funneled to Staff. 34
35
Mayor Marty added that he also has a few questions and comments. 36
37
Councilmember Thomas asked how far this would put the City behind with the Salary and 38
Compensation Study to not have it approved for another two weeks. Assistant to the City 39
Administrator Crane stated that this would delay it for a week or two, and that the July 1, 2006 40
deadline would probably not be able to be met for the Salary Compensation Study. 41
42
Councilmember Stigney stated that his changes are minor, and it would not make a difference in 43
the big picture. He suggested tentative agreement could be made by the Council. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane suggested that the Council can ask the Department 1
Heads if there are any questions about the job descriptions. 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich suggested unless there are grievous errors, Staff could move ahead 4
with the consultant. He noted that a lot of the changes are fairly minor in terms of how they 5
impact the value of the jobs. He stated comments could be received in the interim and brought to 6
the Council at the next meeting so that the project is not delayed. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6796, 9
Approving the Mounds View City Job Descriptions, with minor changes to be given to Staff by 10
the Council. 11
12
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13
14
H. Resolution 6799 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the 15
Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the Silver Lake Road 16
Sidewalk Improvement Project. 17
18
Director of Public Works Lee explained that plans and specifications have been prepared and the 19
estimated cost of the project is $546,905. He stated that a bid date will be set at July 6, 2006, as 20
advertisement for bids must occur at least three weeks before the bid date since the contract is 21
over $100,000. 22
23
Councilmembers Flaherty and Thomas left the meeting at 9:14 p.m. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6799 26
Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting 27
a Bid Date for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project, as amended. 28
29
Ayes – 2 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Absent – 2 (Flaherty, Thomas) 30
31
Motion failed for lack of a majority. 32
33
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To reconsider Resolution 6799 Approving the Plans 34
and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the 35
Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project, until all Councilmembers return to the 36
meeting. 37
38
Mayor Marty recessed the meeting at 9:16 p.m. 39
40
Mayor Marty called the meeting back to order at 9:25 p.m. 41
42
Councilmembers Flaherty and Thomas returned to the meeting at 9:25 p.m. 43
44
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
1
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6799 2
Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting 3
a Bid Date for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project, as amended. 4
5
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 6
7
I. Resolution 6800 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the 8
Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the Hidden Hollow South 9
Street and Utility Installation Project. 10
11
Director of Public Works Lee explained that plans and specifications have been prepared and the 12
estimated cost of the project is $132,635. He stated that a bid date will be set at June 1, 2006, as 13
advertisement for bids must occur at least three weeks before the bid date since the contract is 14
over $100,000. 15
16
Director of Public Works Lee explained that the reason for the increased cost is due to the 17
increase of petroleum prices. He pointed out the actual cost will be based on the bids received. 18
He noted the costs will be borne by the developer except for an estimated $3,700 of construction 19
costs for the utility access trail that will be financed by the City. 20
21
Mayor Marty pointed out that there was a typo on the Resolution, and confirmed that it should 22
read the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Project. Director of Public Works Lee stated 23
that is correct. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6800 26
Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting 27
a Bid Date for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project, as amended. 28
29
Director Ericson asked if the amendment ? of the increased estimated cost. Councilmembers 30
Thomas and Flaherty stated it does. 31
32
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33
34
J. Resolution 6801 Approval of the LELS Local 204 (Police Officers) 2006-2007 35
Labor Agreement. 36
37
Assistant to the Administrator Crane explained the terms of the negotiated labor agreement with 38
the LELS Local 204 (Police Officers) for 2006-2007. 39
40
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6801 41
Approval of the LELS Local 204 (Police Officers) 2006-2007 Labor Agreement. 42
43
Councilmember Stigney stated he has a problem with the wording in the contract in regard to 44
insurance and that he does not support it. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
1
Mayor Marty stated that uniform allowances should be addressed at the next contract negotiation, 2
because it was found that the costs stay the same or slightly gone down. 3
4
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 5
6
K. Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue Update 7
8
City Attorney Riggs reviewed the Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue. He stated his opinion 9
did not change after reviewing the additional information because the City’s Code provisions that 10
were cited do not appear to be applicable to this situation. 11
12
City Attorney Riggs stated that in a memorandum to the Council, he cited a case due to a number 13
of reasons and it is one of a number of cases that is similar to this in regard to interpretations of 14
ordinances. He indicated the ordinance is something that is a question of law, and the court 15
would have its own interpretation if it went for review. 16
17
City Attorney Riggs explained the cited case also deals with ordinance vagueness and what 18
standards apply when interpreting ordinances. He stated that Staff interpretation has some 19
credibility, although it is not the final conclusion or the ultimate deciding point, and the courts 20
will look to that. 21
22
City Attorney Riggs stated that an additional point is that the underlying policy of the City Code 23
needs to be looked at when interpreting ordinances, because there are sometimes there are things 24
that are not covered. He stated that what the Council is attempting to do when adopting a zoning 25
ordinance needs to be considered. 26
27
City Attorney Riggs stated that when the ordinance is reviewed by the court, it is strictly 28
construed against the City. He stated this means that if someone complains that an ordinance is 29
adversely enforced against them, they get the benefit of anything that the court looks at or any 30
interpretations that have been made that may be in the favor of the individual that is complaining. 31
He indicated that this is why a City goes through a number of steps to build a record that applies 32
to the matter. 33
34
City Attorney stated the Council needs to looks at this case in the context of the property owner 35
adjacent to the Amundsens. He stated if the Council was to grant what the Amundsens are 36
asking for and somehow require deconstruction of the retaining wall, the Council has to look 37
specifically at how the City could defend or enforce that. He stated it is a potentially vague 38
situation where the City has built out a record. He noted that the issue will be likely construed 39
against the City. He noted this is the same response received by the League of Cities, and that 40
there would be an enforcement issue with the adjacent property owner. 41
42
Mr. Amundsen thanked the Council for bringing this matter forward. He commented that the 43
Council relies on multiple sources for input to make decisions, and that legal counsel is one of 44
these aspects. He stated legal counsel is responsible to advise on legal impacts and not on 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
administrative actions or responsibilities necessarily or solely. He stated the Council may have 1
legal advice that states that no legal issue exists; however, that response may not be the final 2
answer necessary for the Council to make the situation work. He indicated there is not a legal 3
issue, so the decision is in the Council’s hands. He commented that there is not always a legal 4
answer to every issue before the Council. 5
6
Mr. Amundsen stated that the Council was asked to determine if there is a setback for terraces, 7
retaining walls or other similar structures in the code. He stated that City Attorney Riggs advised 8
there is no setback requirement specified in the code. He stated the building department verified 9
that the adjacent property owner indicated he wanted to create a potential parking area and that 10
they advised the owner that it would have to be five feet from the fence in an eleven foot wide 11
area. He stated the fact is that the building department did not deny the permit for the parking 12
area, which does have a setback requirement. He stated if the adjacent property owner wanted a 13
zero setback for a fence, it would have required the property owner to follow a variance process 14
to get approval. He indicated that variances have almost always been denied for a zero setback. 15
16
Mr. Amundsen stated that the issue needs an answer so that he can move forward. 17
18
Mr. Amundsen stated that the other question is whether the area with a 23 to 30 inch high fence 19
should be next to the property line when the code does not specify its application. He stated as a 20
result, under Section 110108, if there is no setback specified, then it must be a denied use permit. 21
He asked if the Council wants to follow its past practice to deny variances for less than five feet 22
for parking areas. 23
24
Mr. Amundsen stated the Council must determine if it wishes to incur expenses as result of 25
another citizen’s action. He indicated he will have to do something about the liability that he 26
now faces because the fence no longer sufficiently limits his liability. He stated that if the City 27
does not allow the variance, then it will be supporting his position that he should not have to 28
incur additional expenses. 29
30
Mr. Amundsen explained the City was provided information that the code does not have a 31
setback specification and does not cover the situation, but the case quoted by City Attorney Riggs 32
needs to be heard by the district court for the applicants’ appeal. He stated that the building 33
department’s interpretation is questionable in the courts if it is not clear and in plain language 34
within the code. He stated that because nothing is in code, he is having a hard time saying that it 35
negates Section 110108, which says that it has to be in code or it is denied. He added that 36
Section 110105 says that if it is in code, on a permit or a document that the City has, that the 37
more restrictive of the restrictions has to be applied. He noted that there is not an allowed zero 38
setback for any structure except fences. 39
40
Mr. Amundsen asked the Council to direct the Community Development Department to require 41
the adjacent property owner to move the structure back to a five foot minimum setback for the 42
structure that was requested for the parking area. He noted this action by the Council will 43
support the code ordinance that is adopted and will support the primary objective and policy in 44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 25
that the building code is to ensure public health and safety within the neighborhoods and 1
properties. 2
3
Valerie Amundsen, stated this has become more of a bigger issue, and that a citizen of Mounds 4
View needs to be able to look at the code and it needs to be clear. She noted that they have been 5
to the Planning Commission twice and they have not dealt with it there. She stated that because 6
it is not clear, the code says the City has to go with the more restrictive and safe option. She 7
noted that City Attorney Riggs indicated that the code is not clear. She stated the code needs to 8
indicate that the setbacks can be waived with the variance process. She stated this is not going to 9
restrict the City that retaining walls cannot be where they are needed. She stated that in a case 10
such as this, it is the Council’s responsibility is to err on the side of safety. She stated they are 11
cautious and concerned about the neighborhood for its safety, and that should be the Council’s 12
concern. 13
14
Ms. Amundsen stated that some people think they can do whatever they want on their property 15
and this is not true. She stressed that she is very familiar with the restrictions of the code when 16
their home was built. She noted that because of the practice that retaining walls can go over the 17
property line as fences, should not mean that this has become code. She stressed that the issue 18
needs to be addressed or sent back to the Planning Commission. She asked the Council to be 19
responsible and watch out for the community. She stated that virtually nothing is allowed next to 20
the property line other than fences. 21
22
Ms. Amundsen stated she feels like they have researched the issue well and are confident that it 23
will hold up. She stated they are not trying to make trouble for the neighbor, but rather to protect 24
their pool area and also to protect the perimeter of people’s property. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas stated that the structure is a retaining wall. She stated at some future 27
time, a surface may be improved and become a parking structure, but for now it is a retaining 28
wall. She indicated she did a code search for retaining wall and there are a couple of references 29
to retaining walls. She stated there is no specific reference for a retaining wall setback, but there 30
is an implication that retaining walls are allowed straight up to the property line. She stated that 31
it is as not as clear as it could be, and it should be sent back to the Planning Commission to look 32
at some of the issues, but just because there are references to retaining walls at property lines, it 33
does indicate that retaining walls are to be allowed next to the property line. She stated she 34
cannot see any violation by the adjacent property owner. 35
36
City Attorney Riggs commended the Amundsen’s research, and stated that the issue is implicitly 37
covered in the code. 38
39
City Attorney Riggs pointed out that the parking surface is a different situation than the retaining 40
wall issue. 41
42
Mr. Amundsen asked Director Ericson if the applicant asked about parking when he showed the 43
space to the City. Director Ericson stated that he may or may not have, but at some point, the 44
setbacks for vehicles were discussed when there was a vehicle was parked at the location. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 26
1
Ms. Amundsen mentioned that their fence goes around the perimeter of the yard, and there is a 2
height limitation on fences in Mounds View. She stated that if she had a retaining wall next to 3
her own fence, the clarification on retaining walls could easily have been to clarify that the fence 4
could not be a certain height. 5
6
Ms. Amundsen stated the reference does not infer that it is in regard to adjacent properties, and it 7
does not address the setback issue. She stated it was an oversight when the language was added 8
that it was trying to address the fact that high fences are not wanted in the City. She stated that 9
when she built a retaining wall next to their fence, they were told that they need a setback. She 10
stated that somewhere the language has been changed. She stated the code does not think of 11
everything, and the City is doing a disservice to property owners. She stressed the City is called 12
to err on the side of caution and safety, and if the code is not clear, it says it should be more 13
restrictive. 14
15
Ms. Amundsen stated the City should give people the opportunity to ask for variances. She 16
stated the reality is that all kinds of structures can be built on property and the code cannot list 17
every structure, and that is why code is written in such a way that it is more restrictive than 18
permissive, and that when something is not specifically listed as permissible, it is not allowed. 19
She stressed that this is not just for their case, but for all citizens of Mounds View. 20
21
Councilmember Flaherty asked what the retaining wall is made of. Mr. Amundsen stated it is 22
made of green treated wood and anchored in cement. He stated it raised the earth approximately 23
two feet from its natural line. He stated it is a retaining wall for new earth, and noted that a truck 24
brought in a full load of grading fill. 25
26
Councilmember Flaherty confirmed that what caused the retaining wall is the additional fill. Mr. 27
Amundsen stated that is correct. Mrs. Amundsen indicated there was not a grading permit 28
issued. 29
30
Councilmember Flaherty asked Director Ericson if he talked to the neighbor and what his 31
reaction is. Director Ericson indicated he did not want to speak for the resident, but he believes 32
the resident would say that he constructed what was constructed based on the ability to grade up 33
to where the retaining wall was located. He stated there was some issue over what permit the 34
applicant did apply for, and a fence permit for a 23 inch high fence raised some issues. He noted 35
Staff visited the property and determined that it was not necessarily a fence that was being 36
constructed but a retaining wall with the intent to grade the area flat along the side of garage. He 37
stated that whether the applicant may have been simply leveling the area to clean up debris or 38
remove growth or weeds. 39
40
Director Ericson stated how the area will be used is the deciding factor to determine what the 41
setback is. He stated if grass is planted, then there is no issue, but if it is a parking pad, it needs a 42
five foot setback. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 27
Mr. Amundsen commented that the property owner has used the space for parking once, and it 1
was brought to the building inspector’s attention at that time, and shortly thereafter the vehicle 2
was removed. He stated the intent was to use it as a parking area. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty asked if one can terrace up to the lot line. Director Ericson stated he 5
would rather not use that term. 6
7
Councilmember Thomas stated the code indicates a terrace is a porch area. 8
9
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the only need for a retaining wall is because of a change in 10
grade. He stated the change in grade precipitated a retaining wall. He asked what a change in 11
grade means and what is in the code for that. 12
13
Director Ericson indicated there is no setback. 14
15
Mayor Marty asked if they needed a grading permit for a change in grade. Director Ericson 16
stated there is a threshold below which a permit is not required, and the Public Works department 17
has that discretion. He stated that when the permit was brought forward last year, Public Works 18
indicated that no grading permit was needed because it was not an area of fill substantial enough 19
to require a grading permit. He noted this is not in writing, but he asked the Public Works 20
department to review it and they indicated it was not a problem, and based on that, the 21
Community Development Department issued a permit for the work to proceed based on the fact 22
that it was a retaining wall with associated fill. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
Mayor Marty wondered if the permit was ever changed when the adjacent property owner first 29
came in and initially applied for a permit for a 23 inch fence. Director Ericson stated it does not 30
really matter if it was changed, as the permit was issued for work to proceed, and whether it 31
shows up as a fence or retaining wall is immaterial. He stated the end product is what the City is 32
looking at. 33
34
Mayor Marty stated that it has been mentioned that if something is not listed in the code, then it 35
is not allowed. He stated that the City has discovered that there are a number of holes in the code 36
to look into and readdress. He stated that unfortunately for the Amundsens, they discovered the 37
holes for the City due to their situation, and because of that, it would probably be grandfathered 38
in because it has not came up in past. He stated this type of work has been done in different parts 39
of the City, but if it is not listed, that is to protect the City from people bringing in different 40
things. 41
42
Director Ericson stated that the City has to look at the intent, and every code needs the clause that 43
states if it is not explicitly permitted, then it is not allowed. He commented there are holes to 44
allow what one would naturally see in any residential district. He stated birdhouses are not listed 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 28
in the code, and by strict interpretation of the code, it would not be allowed. He stated there are 1
features that may not be contemplated but they are not intended to be restricted because they do 2
not show in the code. He stated that certainly birdhouses are allowed in the City. 3
4
Director Ericson stated that the fact that there is not an interpretation or a definition of a retaining 5
wall in the code does not change the fact that this is something that is not unexpected in a 6
residential district or between property lines. He stated it is a feature that is commonly used in 7
landscaping as well as to demarcate where a property line is. He stated that because it is not 8
strictly permitted, the City has latitude to have the discretion to say that it is allowed by virtue of 9
the fact that it is same or similar or permitted as part of the residential landscape. He stated he 10
disagrees because it is not strictly defined that it not is permitted. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas stated that the situation is not just about the Amundsens, but rather that 13
the City needs to look at the situation across the board. She stated she does not believe the 14
provision applies to this particular situation. She stressed there is a strong implication in the 15
code that retaining walls are allowed at property lines, even though there may not be a definition. 16
She stated that if the issue goes to court, it will come down to what has been the City’s past 17
practice, the consistency of interpretation, and the implication of the code. She stated the City 18
does allow retaining walls on the property line, but the code does not say how it is applied. 19
20
Director Ericson explained the Planning Commission looked at whether there should be a 21
definition of a retaining wall in the code and if there should be a setback for a retaining wall in 22
the code. He mentioned they also looked at issues relating to fences and terraces, and they have 23
not taken official action, they have directed Staff to bring forward additional research. He stated 24
the Planning Commission’s intent is to add a definition of what a retaining wall is and indicate 25
that retaining walls are allowed up to the property line. He stated that the Planning Commission 26
felt that there was not a need to add the definition of a terrace, as it was defined similar to a patio 27
in the code. He stated the Planning Commission felt there should not be a setback for fences and 28
the code should remain as it currently states. He explained the Planning Commission will be 29
bringing forward a recommendation that addresses retaining walls, and the recommendation will 30
be that retaining walls are allowed up to the property line and a definition of a retaining wall will 31
be added. 32
33
Mrs. Amundsen stated the code makes references to ornamental items that can be moved. She 34
stated that there is a definition in the code that defines that a structure is permanently cemented in 35
the ground. She stated one has to be careful in comparing a birdhouse to a structure as they are 36
not similar. 37
38
Mrs. Amundsen asked City Attorney Riggs what his opinion is on the fact that the code states 39
that when something is not specifically allowed, that the City should err on the side of the more 40
restrictive. She wondered how this phrase is being overlooked in this situation. She stated that 41
all parties agree that is a vague situation and there is no clear cut answer. 42
43
City Attorney Riggs stated it is a policy decision in the interpretation, and it is something that 44
needs to be filled in. He stated that every code has that provision and no code is perfect. He 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 29
stated the courts will look at the past fact patterns of the community and the overall broad 1
interpretation of how the code has been utilized. He stated that this would be very strong for a 2
court to look at. 3
4
Mr. Amundsen stated a single sentence would be considered vague, and a strong position would 5
be that it is specifically included in the setback code. He stated the Council needs to make a 6
policy decision in regard to if a neighbor is dissatisfied with the way that the Community 7
Development Department has decided something and that the past practice is to deny zero 8
setback, what is the policy going to be. He wondered if zero setbacks will not be allowed or if 9
they will be allowed at the discretion of the City Administrator. He stated that the current 10
administrative variance allowance specifies that the City Administrator can determine up to two 11
feet. He wondered if the Council will follow the current policy or change policy this evening and 12
allow it to be at the discretion of Community Development department. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas stated past practice has been to allow retaining walls with zero setbacks, 15
so to do anything else would be the change of policy. She indicated the Council has given other 16
structures setbacks. She stated the City would have a significant amount of properties to deal 17
with if the policy was changed. 18
19
Mayor Marty recalled that several years ago, the Community Development department was given 20
some discretion so that everything would not have to come to the Council. He stated that 21
perhaps this is a point where setbacks need to be looked at, too. He stated he was under the 22
impression that even if the Community Development Department approves something, that it 23
still had to go before the Planning Commission for a cursory evaluation. 24
25
Director Ericson stated the administrative variance process is irrelevant in this situation. He 26
stated there are some checks and balances in regard to an administrative variance process, and it 27
does not give the Community Development Director any latitude to grant setback variances. He 28
explained it allows for a reduction to not less than 25 percent of the setback required, but 29
adjoining property owners have to be notified, and if there are no objections, Planning 30
Commission performs a cursory review. He stated if a property owner rejects the reduction, there 31
would be a full variance process. He stated this is only for setback variances. 32
33
Mayor Marty asked if it was acceptable that the area filled is not planted or sodded. He 34
wondered if it would nullify the process if the individual were to park a car there again. 35
36
Director Ericson stated that specifically with regard to the property owner on Pleasant View 37
Drive, if a vehicle is parked there, it would be in violation of City code, and the property owner 38
would receive a notice of violation. He stated this has not occurred since the property owner 39
was informed of the code. He stated it does not nullify the grading or the retaining wall if a 40
violation was to occur again. 41
42
Mayor Marty wondered if the property owner could put in gravel instead of landscaping. 43
Director Ericson explained a resident can have some landscape rock along the property, but the 44
moment the area is used for parking, it becomes a parking area. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 30
1
Mayor Marty asked if there is any leeway to bring the structure down. Director Ericson 2
explained the structure is 24 inches tall, and the fill is at that level or an inch, so he was not sure 3
what could be brought down. 4
5
Mayor Marty wondered if it came up as high as the structure. Mrs. Amundsen stated it does. 6
7
Director Ericson indicated that the property owner is willing to cut off the 4x4 posts so it is level 8
with retaining wall. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney asked if the Planning Commission came up with any recommendations 11
regarding retaining walls up to edge of the property. Director Ericson reported that the Planning 12
Commission felt that a retaining wall up to the property line was appropriate, and that they would 13
make an amendment to explicitly permit that in the same section where fences are permitted and 14
defined as to where they are allowed and what the appropriate setback is. He stated the Planning 15
Commission felt that there was no difference as a fence in that regard and adding the definition to 16
the code would be a worthy amendment. 17
18
Councilmember Flaherty wondered if the adjacent property owner is willing to make any 19
movement or concessions. Director Ericson explained that the property owner indicated he 20
would cut down the 4x4 posts to make the area flush with the rest of the retaining wall. He 21
stated his position agrees with Staff’s position that the retaining wall and the grading is 22
consistent with City code, past practice and past policy. 23
24
Mr. Amundsen stated that they were hoping to have the structure moved back two feet. He stated 25
he is going to need to spend money to rebuild the fence as a result of the neighbor’s activity. 26
27
Mrs. Amundsen stated they will incur costs although they do not want to, because they are 28
concerned about safety. She stated it is annoying that they are put in this predicament when the 29
pool has been there over ten years. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated that he really does not see a solution that is going to make anyone happy. He 32
stated that unless the property owner starts parking his car in the area, the structure cannot be 33
moved back. 34
35
Mr. Amundsen stated that he continues to be frustrated because when he spoke to the neighbor, 36
he indicated that he wanted to build a parking space. He mentioned he talked to Director Ericson 37
about parking at the last meeting. He stated he is confused why the Council does not see the 38
same intent. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas stated that the two issues have no relation to each other. She stated a 41
retaining wall is not a parking surface. She stated that from a legal standpoint, a retaining wall 42
might allow for a parking surface, but it is not the same thing. She noted that regardless of 43
whether a parking surface is created, it is still a different structure that is not related. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 31
Mr. Amundsen asked City Attorney Riggs that when the act of an individual indicates intent. 1
City Attorney Riggs stated that it depends on the issue. 2
3
Councilmember Thomas stated that if the car is parked closer, there is a clear code violation, but 4
until that happens, there is not a code violation. She noted it comes down to a matter of 5
subjective interpretation and she cannot see that there has been a code violation for the Council 6
to enforce. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated the Planning Commission needs to clear up the code. 9
10
Mr. Amundsen confirmed that the Council’s policy is that retaining walls can be built up to the 11
property line and that this policy is set by non-action. He confirmed that in past practices, the 12
building department has approved permits for retaining walls up to the property line, will 13
continue to stand. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated that is correct until it is changed. He noted the Planning Commission will 16
start looking at the code. 17
18
Councilmember Flaherty commented that the adjacent property owner is not before the Council 19
to determine if there is an amiable situation. 20
21
Mr. Amundsen stated he is asking the Council to have the other party be engaged. He wondered 22
if the building department could assure that the additional six or eight inches will be removed by 23
the adjacent property owner. Mr. Amundsen pointed out that he will still have to put up more 24
fencing and find remedies to pay for the additional fencing 25
26
City Administrator Ulrich stated there is nothing precluding the City from getting all parties 27
together to work out an agreement. He stated the City would be willing to potentially mediate 28
this issue. 29
30
Mrs. Amundsen asked if City Administrator Ulrich would set up the meeting with the adjacent 31
property owner. City Administrator Ulrich indicated he would. 32
33
Mrs. Amundsen stated she they are reasonable and concerned citizens and that they hope to leave 34
with the impression that they never intended to be bad neighbors. She stated they plan to live in 35
the neighborhood for many more years. She indicated that unless something can be worked out 36
in the next couple of weeks, they will be forced to spend money to improve the fence. She stated 37
they will probably come to the Council if the situation cannot be resolved with the neighbor. She 38
commented that they feel forced into that situation. 39
40
8. CONSENT AGENDA 41
42
Mayor Marty asked to remove Item C. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 32
A. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, May 8, 2006 to Reconsider an 1
Expired Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2832 Woodale 2
Drive. 3
B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday, May 8, 2006 for a Second 4
Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 5
of the Mounds View City Charter. 6
C. Resolution 6797 Designating the 2005 Mounds View Citizenship Award. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To Approve the Consent Agenda Items A and B. 9
10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
8C. Resolution 6797 Designating the 2005 Mounds View Citizenship Award. 13
14
Mayor Marty pointed out that Mr. Frank Silvas was nominated and received letters of 15
recommendation. He explained that Mr. Silvis will be recognized at the beginning of the Town 16
Hall Meeting on Saturday. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 19
6797 Designating the 2005 Mounds View Citizenship Award. 20
21
Councilmember Flaherty commented that there were numerous letters of recommendation for 22
Mr. Silvis and he is very deserving of this honor. 23
24
Mayor Marty noted that two individuals were nominated this year, and he hopes that the other 25
individual gets nominated next year as he is also very worthy. 26
27
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 32
33
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 34
35
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 36
37
A. April 10, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 38
39
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To Approve the April 10, 2006 City Council 40
meeting minutes as corrected and with corrections that Staff received. 41
42
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 43
44
11. REPORTS 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 33
1
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 2
3
1. Mayor Marty 4
a. Ramsey County League of Local Government Presentation. 5
6
Mayor Marty reviewed that the Ramsey County League of Local Governments will have a 7
presentation on the threat of an influenza pandemic on Thursday, April 27, 2006, from 7:00 p.m. 8
to 9:00 p.m. at the Little Canada City Hall, in regard to what local governments can do. He noted 9
this is a public meeting, but they are asking for RSVPs to (651) 222-7409, Extension 203. 10
11
b. Garbage Cans on Disc Golf Field. 12
13
Mayor Marty noted that some individuals are asking if three garbage cans can be placed on the 14
Disc Golf Field, because there is no place to throw trash. 15
16
c. Announce the Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, April 29, 2006. 17
18
Mayor Marty stated the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Saturday, April 29, 2006 19
at 9:00 a.m. 20
21
B. Reports of Staff 22
23
1. Community Development Director Ericson 24
a. Medtronic Permit Fee Update 25
26
Director Ericson reviewed that in regard to the Medtronic project, the valuation for the buildings 27
are $26 million more than anticipated. He noted that G&H Consultants were contracted to 28
conduct the plan review and would be compensated 25 percent of the plan review fees. He noted 29
the Resolution included a maximum dollar amount, and due to the increased building valuation, 30
the fees will be higher. He noted Staff will present a Resolution at the next Council meeting to 31
revise the original agreement. 32
33
b. Premium Stop Update 34
35
Director Ericson reported that nothing of significance was found when the tanks were removed 36
on the Premium Stop property, and that the inspector indicated that the site was fairly clean. He 37
stated copies of Phase 1 and 2 environmental analyses will be reviewed, but it has been 38
demonstrated that it is a clean site. He noted the City will be seeking Minnesota Pollution 39
Control concurrence that it is in a clean site. He noted the City is working on the title work, and 40
it is conceivable that this item may be back before the City Council to obtain authorization to 41
acquire the property on May 8, 2006. He noted that the property owner did everything that was 42
asked of him. 43
44
2. City Administrator Ulrich 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 34
1
City Administrator Ulrich explained that a draft questionnaire has been prepared for the Town 2
Hall Meeting. He stated that the survey does not have to be conducted and it is not scientific, but 3
it does give residents that attend the Town Hall Meeting the chance to give opinions and 4
feedback. 5
6
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed some of the questions on the survey. He wondered if the 7
Council wants to proceed with the survey or change any of the questions. 8
9
City Administrator Ulrich agreed that it would be difficult to give all the background information 10
to the billboard question. He stated it is a question that would have some obvious answers. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney stated that something should indicate that the billboards will be in the 13
City for the next 30 years. 14
15
Councilmember Thomas stated that County 10 should be broken up as a definition. She stated 16
that no one is proposing it for the length of County Road 10, and it should be presented as it is 17
being proposed. 18
19
Mayor Marty suggested adding the language “south of Woodale Drive to the Mermaid” on 20
County Highway 10. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas suggested the questionnaire could be double sided to allow for a place 23
for people to write in comments. 24
25
Councilmember Stigney suggested adding “in accordance with the current street policy” to the 26
seventh question. The Council concurred. 27
28
Councilmember Stigney suggested that the preference of bonding or TIF for the funding source 29
should be asked for the current street reconstruction projects. 30
31
Councilmember Thomas stated that gets into the specifics and it may get too complicated. 32
33
Director Ericson stated this could be a problem if a person answering does not know what TIF is 34
or what the implication is. 35
36
Mayor Marty suggested leaving the question as it is as more of a general question without having 37
to go into the details. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney wondered how a resident can answer the question if the impact of the 40
funding mechanism is not discussed. He stated the current policy says the neighborhood is asked 41
how it wants it reconstructed. 42
43
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 35
City Administrator stated that last year when this question was adopted, the City was in a 1
different place with the street improvement plan. He suggested there is less of a need to ask a 2
street question. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated that it is a decent question because it encourages residents to take 5
part in the process, but she does not want it to get too complicated. 6
7
The Council, with the exception of Councilmember Stigney, agreed to leave the question as 8
stated. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney stated that the eighth question does not indicate what the funding source 11
is. 12
13
Mayor Marty suggested this question should be removed because the second option is not an 14
option anymore. 15
16
Councilmember suggested that the second option should read that no changes are needed. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney stated that it does not define the fitness center that is being considered. 19
He asked if the question can be pulled. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated this question might be difficult to work out right now with the 22
current situation. 23
24
The Council agreed to remove the question. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated that Staff made good choices on the questions that will be asked. 27
28
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the church indicated that April would be the last month that 29
they would be occupying the building. He noted the City will be sending a final invoice for 30
services and space. He noted they were paying $1,500 per month to Canyon Grill for the space 31
they were occupying, so this will be empty space. 32
33
Mayor Marty asked if they have a contract with Canyon Grill. City Administrator Ulrich stated it 34
appears to be a 30 day contract, and City Attorney Riggs is reviewing. 35
36
City Attorney Riggs stated there is a 180 day notice provision in the lease, but it is not there any 37
more. He stated that they appear to be on a 30 day term at this point, although the City is the 38
successor under the lease. He noted Staff will resolve that and send a notice to clarify what is 39
going on. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas stated that the City was clear when the situation was terminated with 42
Canyon Grill that was set up as a 30 day term. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 36
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the church indicated when Canyon Grill left that they were 1
interested in continuing the lease, and never gave any indication that they were leaving. 2
3
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 1, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 4
Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 8, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 5
6
13. ADJOURNMENT 7
8
The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 p.m. 9
10
Transcribed by: 11
12
Annette Anderson 13
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 14
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
April 24, 2006 6
New Brighton City Hall 7
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16
17
NOT PRESENT: None. 18
19
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20
21
A. Monday, April 24, 2006 City Council Agenda 22
23
Mayor Marty suggested adding Item 11C under Reports of City Attorney to Council Business as 24
Item 7K. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Monday, April 24, 2006 agenda as 27
amended. 28
29
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 30
31
5. PUBLIC INPUT 32
33
Mayor Marty reminded citizens of the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting that will be held on 34
Saturday, April 29, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 35
36
Doris Heilman, 3034 Ardmore Avenue, stated there was an accident on Highway 10 on Saturday 37
afternoon. She stated she has gone from being angry and disgusted that it has happened again, to 38
being very sad for the child and the family. She states she is haunted by the phone call she 39
received on February 20, 2000, when her son, Brandon, was hit and killed there. 40
41
Ms. Heilman stressed there is a severe waning lack of awareness about how dangerous the road is 42
for kids. She indicated that right after Brandon’s accident, the schools were teaching kids how to 43
properly cross the highway, but she stated that she made telephone calls to the schools, and found 44
out that this stopped a couple of years ago and there is only some general discussion about it in 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
health class. She stressed that this is not enough. She stated the City has a DARE officer and a 1
Community Resource Officer that could visit the school to teach children about road safety, if the 2
school does not have the personnel, the knowledge or the education to conduct the training. She 3
noted it cannot be that expensive to send an officer one morning to the school to provide training. 4
5
Ms. Heilman stated the question of how does one cross the road was asked today, and Brandon’s 6
father was told that one should run as fast as one can before the light changes. She stated that 7
according to what was learned in February 2000, one should travel half ways across the road 8
when the light first changes, and then wait in the middle of the road until the light changes again. 9
She stated there is a basic lack of understanding on how to cross the road. She stressed this 10
should not have happened the first or second time, and although the second time was not as tragic 11
as her son’s accident, that there should not be a third time. 12
13
Mayor Marty asked Deputy Chief Tom Kinney to provide a brief run down of what happened. 14
15
Deputy Chief Kinney stated the Mounds View Police Department responded to a traffic accident 16
at 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, April 22, 2006, at County Road 10 and Edgewood Drive. He stated an 17
eleven year old bicyclist was struck by a vehicle and taken to the hospital. He explained the 18
accident is still under review and investigation by the State Patrol, so the details cannot be 19
released. He explained the Police Department assisted with providing traffic control and with the 20
witness statements. He stated there is an incident report available, but the accident itself is being 21
handled by the State Patrol. He added there will be a reconstruction due to the severity of the 22
injury to the child. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated that one thing that should be mentioned is that there was a 25
significant problem with the timing of the lights, and explained that the lights were recently re-26
timed so one can get all the way across by pressing the button. She stated that children need to 27
be educated on how to properly cross the street. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated the re-timing of the lights with the crosswalks was the first safety issue that 30
was addressed on County Highway 10, and the City will be moving on with it. 31
32
Mike Sczcepanski, 2385 Laport Drive, stated it is an unfortunate situation of what happened on 33
County Road 10. He stated the Council is considering placement of additional billboards or 34
taking the movement of the billboards over. He wondered how many millions of dollars will be 35
spent on the upgrading and the beautification of County Road 10. He stated the Council is 36
talking about approving placement of billboards on County Road 10. He stated that is absolutely 37
ludicrous. He stressed billboards should have never been allowed in Mounds View, and they 38
should not be allowed now. Mr. Sczcepanski stated he does not like looking at billboards, and 39
no one should have to look at them. He stated if the billboards are placed where no one in their 40
homes can see them and not on County Road 10. 41
42
Mr. Sczcepanski added that he would like the Council to update the public on a regular basis as 43
to what is going on with the sound wall. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
Mayor Marty asked Economic Development Coordinator Backman for an update on the matter. 1
2
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that it is a priority for the Council and the 3
City has been trying to work with the legislature on this issue. He stated there was a hearing on 4
April 11, 2006, where the City tried to get it amended on to the Omnibus Transportation bill on 5
the Senate side, but the City was not able to do it. He stated it is difficult at that juncture, 6
because the chairs are marshalling those omnibus bills through the process. He stated that 7
recognition has been received from the different entities that this is an important issue. 8
9
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that because it is a bonding year, the budge 10
targets do not allow for a project of this amount to move forward at this time. He noted that the 11
target for the transportation bill on the House is a modest $750,000. He stated that all operating 12
agencies and stakeholders will continue to work on the components of the noise wall extension 13
and the design concept extension on I-35W area from Lexington Avenue to 694. He thanked 14
Representative Bernardy and Senator Betzold for their time and efforts on behalf of the Coalition 15
and the City on this issue. 16
17
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he attended a meeting on April 18, 18
2006 at the Capitol with all of the entities, where the legislation and the status of things were 19
discussed. He explained the consensus was that this issue should be addressed at the next 20
session, and work should be started earlier in this process. He explained the issue continues to 21
have the support of Medtronic and the other players that want to see the sound wall. He stated it 22
is a priority for the City, and pointed out that the City has not forgotten about this issue, but the 23
financial realities at the Capitol have to be recognized. 24
25
Mayor Marty pointed out that Economic Development Coordinator Backman related to him last 26
week that MnDOT is on board with the City and is supporting this issue, and that carries a lot of 27
weight. He stated in the past, the City has tried to drag MnDOT along to get it done, but this 28
time they are in support of this project. 29
30
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that with luck in the process, the project 31
could be underway in 2007. 32
33
Councilmember Flaherty asked Deputy Chief Kinney about the traffic safety training by the 34
DARE Officer. Councilmember Thomas stated the school was doing it. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty agreed with Ms. Heilman that children should be shown how to 37
correctly cross the street and about traffic safety in general. He wondered if the City can contact 38
the school to get the program rolling again. City Administrator Ulrich stated he would look into 39
that. 40
41
Councilmember Gunn recalled that an actual light was brought into the school and the children 42
were taught how to push the button and how to wait for the light to change. She could not recall 43
who was doing the training. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
Deputy Chief Kinney stated the Ramsey County Sheriff Department has been fairly active with 1
school safety patrol and education. He stated more effort can be put forth to educate children 2
about traffic safety, and it would certainly not take a lot of time or effort. He stated a DARE 3
officer or a School Resource Officer can invest some effort into it. He stated the Police 4
Department would make an effort to provide education. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated that after Brandon’s accident in 2000, there was a concerted effort in the 7
schools for two to three years to provide education, and it is now too bad that something like this 8
has to wake up the community to keep it going in the curriculum. He stated this education is 9
definitely called for. 10
11
Councilmember Flaherty stated he received calls from residents around the area about jake 12
braking around the corners of Highway 610. He asked if the City can look into putting up signs 13
that say “no jake braking” until the sound wall is in place. He commented that he does 14
understand that enforcement is a different subject. 15
16
Mayor Marty stated he would like to see no jake braking in and around Mounds View, and noted 17
this issue has been discussed for years. 18
19
Mr. Sczcepanski stated that four or five years ago, there was approval to put signage up, but it 20
could not be called jake braking due to some legal issues. He stated the signs never appeared, 21
and added that it would require the Mounds View Police Department to periodically patrol it. He 22
commented that he sees the Blaine Police Department on County Road 10 stopping people and 23
unfortunately, he does not see the Mounds View Police Department out there. He stated he 24
thought this was approved a long time ago, but he has still not seen the signs. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated that Jacobs Company made that type of equipment, but they are not the only 27
ones. He indicated that since then, there have been some signs erected that say noise ordinances 28
are enforced on County Road I. He stated that controls should be placed on County Road 10 as 29
well as on City streets because it is a problem. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney recalled the discussion of signs for jake braking, but noted that the City 32
has no control for putting signs on a State highway. 33
34
Mr. Sczcepanski recalled that the State representative agreed that the signs could be put up if the 35
City asked for them. 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty indicated that the City would have to put the signs up and would need 38
to go through MnDOT. 39
40
Director of Public Works Lee explained that MnDOT will allow signs on the right-of-way, but it 41
has to be an official request by the City and the City has to pay for and enforce the signs. 42
43
City Administrator Ulrich noted this matter would be placed on the work session agenda. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 1
2
A. Resolution 6798, A Resolution of Appreciation for Stan McDonald for over 3
four years of dedicated service with the Mounds View Economic 4
Development Commission (EDC). 5
6
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/STIGNEY. To approve Resolution 6798, A Resolution of 7
Appreciation for Stan McDonald for over four years of dedicated service with the Mounds View 8
Economic Development Commission (EDC). 9
10
Mayor Marty stated he wished Mr. McDonald was here tonight to present the Resolution to him 11
personally. Mayor Marty stated he first met Mr. McDonald when he was a Council liaison to the 12
Park and Recreation Commission, and indicated Mr. McDonald has contributed quite a bit to the 13
community. 14
15
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 16
17
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 18
19
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for 20
an Over-size Garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road. 21
22
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the applicants, Don and Diane Balk, 23
are building a new home and would like to expand the garage to 1,062 square feet in order to 24
park their recreational vehicle inside. He explained that the maximum sized garage permissible 25
without a conditional use permit is 952 square feet. 26
27
Director Ericson stated that all the setbacks and maximum square footage requirements of the 28
conditional use permit is satisfied with this proposal. He stated that all possible adverse effects 29
of the proposed conditional use were considered, and there does not appear to be any adverse 30
effects. 31
32
Director Ericson explained that the home is two stories, and the home is taller than the garage. 33
He stated the garage was designed to be incorporated into the home itself, and it is well designed 34
so that it fits in and blends in with the homes and other homes in the area. 35
36
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. 37
38
Robert Ringdahl, 8485 Sunnyside Road, stated he lives in the house right next to the proposed 39
garage, and commented that it is quite a big garage and it is close to the property line. 40
41
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 42
43
Mayor Marty stated that a number of years ago, there was an individual that wanted to build a 44
garage to use for parking a recreational vehicle instead of having it sit in the driveway for the 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
summer. He explained the City gave permission for that and the neighbors had some concerns 1
over size of the garage, but once the garage was there and the resident was able to pull the 2
recreational vehicle in, the neighbors felt much happier about it. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated it is a big garage, and wondered if the applicant had made sure that the 5
garage door is high enough to park the recreational vehicle in. 6
7
Mr. Don Balk, 8478 Long Lake Road, stated it took three tries before the architectural drawings 8
were accurate so that the recreational vehicle could clear the garage door, but they have 9
confirmed that it will work for the intended purpose. 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve a Conditional Use 12
Permit for an Over-size Garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road. 13
14
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 15
16
B. Resolution 6794 Approving the Final Plat and Development Agreement for 17
the Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision. 18
19
Planning Associate Heller explained that Dan Saplis Inc. has submitted an application for a 20
major subdivision of parcels on the north side of Woodale Drive. The proposed Hidden Hollow 21
South subdivision would create six buildable lots from the existing two lots. 22
23
Planning Associate Heller stated that the Council approved the preliminary plat on February 27, 24
2006, and the final plat is very similar. She stated there were some enlargement of some 25
easements, as well as adjustments of the roadway placement three feet to the east due to existing 26
manholes. She stated these changes are reflected in the final plat. 27
28
Planning Associate Heller showed a picture of the model home that will be built first, and 29
explained it is 3,400 square feet finished with an additional 1,500 square feet unfinished 30
basement. She stated this development is a nice compliment to the Hidden Hollow project to the 31
north. 32
33
Mayor Marty asked if there were two garages. Planning Associate Heller explained that there is 34
a three car garage. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty commented that he was really happy to see that the City Forrester went 37
out to the site to determine if there were any trees that could be saved. He noted that the City 38
Forrester indicated that there were not any trees of value on the site. 39
40
Mayor Marty commented that the City Forrest indicated that vegetation is located in the front and 41
west sides of property. Planning Associated Heller stated that most of it would have to be 42
removed for the street placement, but Staff wanted the City Forrester to go in and see if there was 43
anything else to save. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mayor Marty stated that he received a couple of comments from residents about the naming of 1
the new cul-de-sac as Pleasant View Drive. He stated that Pleasant View Drive continues on to 2
the north and continues on to the south and is disjointed for a couple of blocks. He stated there 3
may be confusion for people following Pleasant View Drive. He wondered if there is any reason 4
to call it Pleasant View Drive. 5
6
Planning Associated Heller suggested it could be named Pleasant View Circle. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 9
6794 Approving the Final Plat and Development Agreement for the Hidden Hollow South Major 10
Subdivision. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney asked if the street construction costs will be covered by the 13
development. Planning Associate Heller stated it would. 14
15
Director Ericson asked for a confirmation on the street name. The Council agreed it should be 16
named Pleasant View Circle. 17
18
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked for clarification that the existing street would not 19
be renamed, and only the extension running north and south would be renamed. The Council 20
indicated that was correct. 21
22
Mayor Marty asked if there is going to be a trailway along the western border that is north of 23
Hidden Hollow South where the City easement is. Planning Associate Heller stated it would be 24
an access trail. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
C. First Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the 29
City Charter. 30
31
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained on April 18, 2006, the Mounds View 32
Charter Commission adopted Resolution 2006-05, which put forward suggested amendments to 33
the Charter in Chapter 7 relating to “Taxation and Finances”. She noted that these amendments 34
were discussed at the April 18, 2006 Special Work Session between the Mounds View Charter 35
Commission and the City Council. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and approve the Introduction 38
and First Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Charter. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated that he thought the whole Section 7 should have been before the 41
Council instead of doing it in pieces. 42
43
Councilmember Flaherty commented that the joint meeting between the Council and Charter 44
Commission was amiable and productive. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
1
Mr. Amundsen wondered if the Council wanted to talk about the objectives of the Code change. 2
He stated it is important that the timeline is inserted so that the general public can pull up the 3
Charter and actually look at the timeline of how the budgeting goes. He stated if residents want 4
to be involved in the budget process, they need to start thinking about it now because public 5
input needs to be received by June. He stated he likes the timeline piece of the language the best 6
that provides an outline for the public to understand. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated that this has been discussed at numerous meetings, but it is a good point to 9
refresh the public on. 10
11
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 12
13
D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 771, an Ordinance Amending 14
Chapters 502 and 503 of the Municipal Code relating to Liquor Licenses. 15
16
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the first proposed amendment changes 17
the code to require that a public hearing be conducted for every new, transferred or renewed 18
license. He noted this change is recommended based on feedback from residents who would 19
have wanted to provide input during license renewals. 20
21
Director Ericson explained that the second proposed amendment would allow liquor license 22
facilities to offer outdoor seating in association with their establishment. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve the Second Reading 25
and Adoption of Ordinance 771, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 502 and 503 of the Municipal 26
Code relating to Liquor Licenses. 27
28
Director Ericson asked if the motion authorizes Staff to publish the ordinance summary. Mayor 29
Marty indicated it does. 30
31
ROLL CALL VOTE: 32
33
Mayor Marty Aye 34
Councilmember Flaherty Aye 35
Councilmember Gunn Aye 36
Councilmember Stigney Aye 37
Councilmember Thomas Aye 38
39
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 40
41
E. Consideration of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of 42
the Municipal Code relating to Signs and Billboards. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mayor Marty stated that Staff has been working on some questions for an informal survey to be 1
handed out at the upcoming Town Hall Meeting that will be held on Saturday, April 29, 2006. 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich explained the list of possible questions is a draft version. 4
5
Mayor Marty confirmed that one of the survey questions relates to signs and billboards. City 6
Administrator Ulrich indicated that is correct. 7
8
Mayor Marty asked how the question reads. City Administrator Ulrich handed out the draft 9
questions to the Council. He explained the question reads, “Discussion regarding the relocation 10
of billboards in the community is ongoing and consideration is being given to alternative 11
locations. Which locations do you feel are appropriate for billboards? Check all that apply: US 12
Highway 10, County Highway 10, Old Highway 8, I-35W, Other”. He stated it is a general 13
survey question to find out where people feel billboards would be appropriate. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated that if the Council votes on this issue, then the question could be stricken 16
from the survey. He stated he would like to get a straw poll of residents at the Town Hall 17
Meeting. He suggested postponing the final decision until the survey results are received. He 18
mentioned he has heard from some residents on this issue, and thought the City might be able to 19
get more opinions from residents that attend the Town Hall Meeting. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney stated that his mind is made up regardless of the Town Hall Meeting. 22
He stated it is not a good idea to put billboards on County Highway 10. 23
24
Councilmember Flaherty stated his mind is not made up, and he certainly would welcome public 25
input. He stated that throughout the negotiations with Medtronic, the City had a “good faith 26
agreement” and the location south of Woodale Drive was mentioned more than one time. He 27
stated it would be disingenuous to them to remove it from the table. He stated he is looking for 28
more input. He stated he wants to ask Clear Channel what they are planning in that location and 29
that he would like to see a rendering. He indicated he would also like to have information from 30
the business owners around the area for their feelings on what will happen. 31
32
Councilmember Flaherty stated this is in the heart of the business community, and there are no 33
homes on the front or back of the location south of Woodale Drive. 34
35
Councilmember Gunn noted that Mr. Dan Hall is present, and that he volunteered the Mermaid 36
as a site for a billboard. 37
38
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated that he cannot give the exact date that it started to look like 39
the Medtronic project would go through, but he was approached three people on the City Council 40
or City Staff to see if he would be interested in having a billboard on his property. Mr. Hall 41
indicated that he was interested, so he contacted Clear Channel in good faith. He stated it has 42
been approximately ten months since conversations were begun with Clear Channel. He 43
indicated he has spent $10,000 and has been under contract with Clear Channel since February 44
15 in several renditions, because he had input from the representatives from the City of Mounds 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
View looking for places to put billboards. He stated he is in the business district with light and 1
heavy industrial properties, and no residential properties. He stated Mounds View is one of the 2
last cities with outside storage, and this is the type of area that billboards are supposed to be in to 3
support the business community. 4
5
Mr. Hall stated that when Mounds View was first conceived, it was too bad that the City was 6
split in half over a four lane county highway. He stated that what is there and what needs to be 7
there needs to be looked at. He stated he has gone through a great expense already, and that it is 8
rather disingenuous of the City to sit back and see what the residents want. He wondered why 9
the question does not say if an option is not selected for a billboard site, then it will cost 10
$850,000 in taxes for the City of Mounds View. He stated the ramifications need to be explained 11
as well, not just where would residents would or would not like billboards. 12
13
Mr. Hall stated the City has done a wonderful job in putting off this issue month after month. He 14
stated Medtronic is moving in. He asked where the good faith estimate is in letting Clear 15
Channel pick and choose spots for the billboards. He stated by not allowing billboards on 16
County Road 10, it is closing down 99 percent of the City of Mounds View to Clear Channel. He 17
stated Medtronic is not going to pay for it, and that the City of Mounds View will fork out 18
$850,000 per site. 19
20
Mr. Hall stated before a straw poll is done, the City needs to look at what was said to Medtronic, 21
what was said to Clear Channel, and what was said to him. He stated he started to look at 22
billboards and now the City is saying that it is not going to be good for his business. He stated 23
the City is taking revenue from two billboards between Sysco and Medtronic. He stated the City 24
is putting itself above private business. He stated he has a right to have billboards on his 25
property. He stressed he was asked by the City and worked out a good faith agreement with 26
Clear Channel. He stated this matter should be voted on tonight, and not be postponed any 27
longer. He stated it is costing grief and money for people. 28
29
Councilmember Thomas stated she hates billboards, and she can see billboards from where she 30
lives behind the Community Center. She stated this is not something she wants to see, and noted 31
she has been on record to protect the residents from what they can see from their homes. She 32
stated commercial areas are appropriate areas for billboards. She stated the need to protect 33
residential areas should be reflected in the Ordinance. She stated she knows how she is going to 34
vote. She stated the question is not appropriate to ask residents. She indicated that after looking 35
at the language for six weeks, she does not see what she would like to yet. 36
37
Tom McCarver, Clear Channel, stated that Clear Channel has made good faith estimates with the 38
City. He stated the economics are not the same as on I-35 and County Road 10. He stated that 39
he spoke with Mr. Hall to rework a deal that is financially viable, realizing what the City issues 40
are. 41
42
Mr. McCarver stated that in regard to Councilmember Thomas’s issue with billboards in general, 43
he indicated that the poles will be wrapped as much as possible, which is not a contractual 44
obligation, but it can be done at considerable cost to Clear Channel. He stated he spoke with Mr. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
Hall about this. He stated he would like this matter resolved, and he was under the impression 1
that there would be a vote tonight. He stressed that Clear Channel has been working as hard as 2
possible to come up with a solution to please the City. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty asked for a rendering of what the billboard will look like. Mr. 5
McCarver stated he would try to do that. 6
7
Councilmember Stigney commented that at the last Council meeting, the Ordinance was 8
approved and then reconsidered because the number of billboards within the City was not 9
restricted. 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and approve Ordinance 769, 12
an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to Signs and Billboards. 13
14
Councilmember Stigney commented that this is a 30 year proposition and it is inappropriate to 15
have billboards on County Road 10 as one enters into the City. He stated the relocation meant 16
that the City would need to come up with alternate locations to put billboards in. He recalled that 17
City Administrator Ulrich indicated at the last meeting that the City has provided ample space in 18
which to relocate the billboards. He noted that if billboards were not such an eyesore, then 19
Medtronic would have kept them. He stated he had a problem with the past language that gave 20
preferential treatment to the Mermaid only. He stated it is best for the long term to keep 21
billboards off County Road 10, and that is how the Ordinance currently reads. 22
23
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To amend the Ordinance in regard to 24
Subdivision 6, Section 9, Item B, relating to location (and any other parts that need to be 25
adjusted), to remove Old Highway 8 and insert County Highway 10 south of Woodale Drive at 26
the entrance to Mounds View in the commercial area only. 27
28
Councilmember Stigney stated this is the opposite of what the City should be doing. He stated 29
for the next 30 years, the Mermaid will have up to two signs on County Road 10 to the exclusion 30
of any other place. 31
32
Mr. McCarver explained one sign is proposed. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney stated the Ordinance does not limit it to one sign. He stated billboards 35
do not belong on County Road 10. He stressed the City is going to spend money to beautify the 36
area, and now there will be billboards for the next 30 years for the preferential treatment of the 37
Mermaid only. 38
39
City Administrator Ulrich noted that there is a spacing requirement of 500 feet. He wondered 40
what the frontage is on Highway 10. Director Ericson stated he could not answer as to the length 41
between County Road H north to the Mermaid property. 42
43
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
Mr. Hall indicated he is not asking for two billboards on his property. He stated he is asking for 1
one billboard. He stated he would not have a problem in changing the Ordinance to read one 2
billboard per property owner (unless it is the City of Mounds View). 3
4
Councilmember Stigney stated that with a spacing requirement of 500 feet, it is possible that 5
there would only be one billboard. He stated that the amendment is to allow billboards on 6
County Road 10 and take them off Highway 8. He stated the Council needs to deals with it and 7
not the residents. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated that the billboard height limit in this Ordinance is not to exceed 45 feet. He 10
stated there would be a 45 foot billboard in town. He noted that in the past, there have been 11
discussions about billboard height of 35 feet in Mounds View and 45 feet along I-35W. He 12
stated this Ordinance is not amending the height requirements, so a billboard could be up to 45 13
feet right in town. 14
15
Mayor Marty indicated that he spoke with the residents that live on Old Highway 8, and noted 16
that they did not seem to be as concerned with billboards along the Old Highway 8. He noted it 17
is mostly public land except for Townsedge Terrace, and that would be up to Mr. Toberman. He 18
stated farther south, there is the possible reuse of the site of the Skyline Motel. He explained 19
Townsedge Terrace is down the hill from the Skyline Motel. He stated that unless there is a 20
billboard placed at the Townsedge Terrace entrance or on the Skyline Motel property, he does 21
not see it affecting the residents in the area. 22
23
Mayor Marty noted that he is concerned about billboards placed along County Highway 10, 24
because the City is trying to create a boulevard look with landscaping, lighted trailways, and a 25
City monument to beautify the area. He stressed that having billboards erected for 30 years is 26
totally contrary to the boulevard look. He stated the Comp Plan designates the area as business 27
light industrial, and while it is the business district, it is also the entrance to Mounds View. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated he received calls from residents about the signs that are there now, but they 30
are signs that represent the actual businesses that are there. He pointed out that anything can go 31
up on a billboard. He noted that when the City controlled the now-Medtronic property, the City 32
had control over what types of advertisements would be on the billboards, but in this case there 33
would be no control over the content of the billboards, and Clear Channel would have control 34
over what would be on the billboards. 35
36
Mayor Marty pointed out that billboards were used by the City to try and keep the taxpayers of 37
Mounds View from having to pay taxes to support the golf course. Mayor Marty stated that the 38
City got a good deal with Clear Channel, which would have paid off the golf course and left the 39
City with several million left over. 40
41
Mayor Marty stated it is his understanding after talking with City Staff, that the City is providing 42
adequate sites along Old Highway 8, US Highway 10 and I-35W for the number of billboards 43
that need to be relocated. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
Mayor Marty stated that the first time the Ordinance was read and approved, County Highway 10 1
was removed because it was brought to the Council’s attention that there were enough land and 2
sites available without using County Highway 10. He explained the Ordinance was only 3
reconsidered to look into limiting the amount of billboards in the City, because it could end up 4
with several billboards. 5
6
Mayor Marty stressed that billboards need to be kept out of the corridor to achieve the boulevard 7
look. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas stated that the City is not done with the Medtronic project. She stated 10
this is about the Council doing its job. She stated if the Council pursues a concept of limitation 11
for sites that are appropriate for uses, the Council is not doing due diligence. She commented 12
that she feels a significant effort needs to be made to correct that. She indicated that the City 13
agreed to put up six billboards, and the City would find places to put them as a result of the 14
agreement with Clear Channel. She stressed that the City needs to stick to agreements that were 15
made in the past. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney stated the Council is not supposed to find sites, but rather provide 18
zoning on where the signs could go. He stated if Clear Channel is unable to negotiate site 19
locations, Medtronic agreed it would buy out two billboards in Phase 1, and the other two in 20
Phase 2. 21
22
Councilmember Stigney asked City Administrator Ulrich if adequate and ample space for the 23
billboard site locations have been provided by the City of Mounds View with the Ordinance as it 24
now reads. City Administrator Ulrich replied that if one looks strictly at the amount of space 25
available in the zones designated, there are areas where billboards can be located. He stated the 26
question is if they are acceptable with Clear Channel. He pointed out that the contract reads that 27
Clear Channel has the ultimate rejection authority, and can reject any location that the City 28
comes up with. He explained the City has to designate areas within the City. He stated that 29
based on footage, there are available sites. 30
31
City Attorney Riggs stated that the agreement with Clear Channel and Medtronic took many 32
months to finalize, and the agreement states that there is the ability of Clear Channel to reject 33
sites. He pointed out that the sites have to be workable. He stated there may be locations that a 34
sign may be able to be erected, but there may be no parties interested in doing that. He explained 35
the long term negotiations with both parties require the City to assist with where the signs can go 36
and where they are allowed in the City. He stated there are certain provisions that the City has to 37
fall back that are protections for the City, and some is open to discussion. He stated if there are 38
four sites approved and they are not workable, the City is not out of the woods. He explained it 39
is the Council’s policy and determination to decide where the signs go. He indicated Staff will 40
work with Medtronic and Clear Channel to see what locations work. He noted that City still has 41
more than 18 months to deal with the issue since there is a two year time period for the signs to 42
be moved. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the one site along Highway 10 is the first interest in a 1
specific sign other than the Sysco discussion. He stated there has not been specific action on the 2
sign permit and necessary approvals for I-35W or Old Highway 8. He stated the City has some 3
discretion on where signs are allowed, and that the City should look at where the signs might best 4
fit. He noted that because this is the first indication of a permit, the City has not gone down the 5
road of approving one specific site anywhere within the City. 6
7
City Administrator Ulrich stated the City is already looking at different locations outside of the 8
major thoroughfares and putting them on County Road 10. He stated that in earlier discussions 9
with the Council, it was determined that County Road 10 is not an ideal location. He stated if 10
billboards were on Highway 10, they would be down near the business end. 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich pointed out there was some indication given to the business owner that 13
it would be a possibility, but it was premised on the fact that the City would have some design 14
control. He pointed out the City has not seen renderings on how the sign will look. He stated 15
this important if it is expanded to this location. He stated the City will have enough control to 16
dictate how it will look and that it will be a benefit to the City and not a determent. 17
18
City Attorney Riggs added that the situation has a lot of unknowns and it was his understanding 19
that the City would have a better idea of where the signs could go. He indicated this is the first 20
sign that someone has indicated where the sign will go. He stated this somewhat ties the hands 21
of the Council to make an informed decision to impose as policy. He noted the Ordinance may 22
be coming back based on where other potential possible sites may be. 23
24
Councilmember Flaherty stated that one of the issues he has is the integrity of the City. He 25
mentioned this goes back to the deal made with Clear Channel to offset the costs of the golf 26
course. He stated a better deal came along for the City, and the City promised Clear Channel that 27
it would create a workable deal to get out of their contracts. He stated the City reneged on the 28
contract with Clear Channel. Councilmember Flaherty stated that when Phase 1 started, and it 29
would be possibly under the City dollars to relocate the sign, clearly the location Mr. Hall is 30
talking about was in there as a possible location. He stated as Phase 2 came up, the attitude is 31
that Medtronic will pay for it if the City does not. He noted Medtronic will not pay for it. He 32
stressed Medtronic is a brand new corporation that is moving into the City, and the City fought 33
dearly to have them come in, and to make the assumption that they will pay for it, is not starting 34
off on a very good foot with such a large neighbor. He stated the City so far has not been 100 35
percent honest with the way it is moving forward. He stated this particular site was open for 36
discussion when it was the City’s dollar, and now that Phase 2 has came along, it is off the able. 37
He stated that is disingenuous to Medtronic and the City needs to find a workable deal and work 38
in good faith with Clear Channel. 39
40
Councilmember Flaherty stressed that he would like to see a rendering, because no one knows 41
what it will look like. 42
43
Mr. Sczcepanski stated that Clear Channel is a billion dollar corporation, and if the City says no 44
to Clear Channel, they will find sites somewhere else. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
1
Mr. Sczcepanski stated other businesses will want a billboard on their property. He wondered 2
how much money the billboard would net per year. He wondered how many lawyers would be 3
trying to fight for billboards on other properties at $300,000 for 30 years. He urged the Council 4
to say no billboards on the entire corridor. 5
6
Mayor Marty noted that the City could set a precedent for other businesses on County Highway 7
10 to say that the City is giving preferential treatment to a specific business. 8
9
Mr. McCarver stated this is a “Cap and Replace” ordinance, which is in exchange to limit the 10
cap. He indicated this ordinance is used throughout the United States. He stated there is plenty 11
of case history and precedents that indicate it is perfectly fine to do this. He stated that all along 12
through the agreement, the intent of Clear Channel was to gain no more than what it has. 13
14
Mr. McCarver noted that he previously indicated that Clear Channel had three locations 15
including the Sysco site, one on I-35W and one on Mr. Hall’s property. He stated that Clear 16
Channel has still not found a workable fourth solution. He commented that during negotiations, 17
Old Highway 8 and County Road J do not work. He stated Clear Channel has been forthcoming 18
on where things can work and where they cannot. He stated if billboards have to be on County 19
Road 10, that the closer to I-35W, the better it would be for all parties. He stated most of County 20
Road 10 was thrown into mix, but it is not the ideal location. He noted that Clear Channel may 21
not be able to find a fourth workable solution. 22
23
Mr. McCarver stated he can supply a design rendering. He mentioned the three sites are happy to 24
use the construction standards and the standards could be added to the Ordinance. He noted that 25
it is the same framework as originally talked about with the only difference being the color of the 26
stone. He stated the renderings and construction standards could be attached to the permit 27
application. 28
29
Mr. McCarver stressed that Clear Channel is doing everything to fulfill its end of the agreement, 30
and he appreciates the comments about the spirited agreement and he feels that both sides have 31
worked fairly. 32
33
City Attorney Riggs stated that construction standards were based on the original proposal that 34
the City received, and were included in lease language. He suggested adopting additional 35
language to the Ordinance to make sure that is covered. 36
37
Mayor Marty stated this is another reason to postpone action to the first Council meeting in May 38
to get that language added, regardless where the billboards going. He noted this may delay the 39
issue for two weeks. He added he would like to find out residents’ comments from the Town 40
Hall Meeting on Saturday. 41
42
Mr. Hall pointed out the residents need to be informed about and understand the ramifications for 43
the decision. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
Director Ericson noted that Medtronic is asking the City to consider County Road 10 site 1
favorably consistent with their ideals of what would be working in good faith with Clear 2
Channel. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated that Medtronic did not want billboards in backyard but they think it is okay 5
for Mounds View to put them in its front yard. 6
7
Councilmember Gunn stated Medtronic has taken two billboards and suggested the City should 8
take one. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas noted that there is a willing private property owner. 11
12
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Marty, Stigney) Amendment Motion Carried. 13
14
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To amend the Ordinance to allow 15
billboards on the north side of County Road 10. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney suggested the billboards could be correlated to a Mounds View City 18
sign structure. He stated this would be fair to the businesses on the north side of County Road 19
10. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn stated that the amendment did not limit billboards to either side of the 22
highway. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated she was fine with billboards on either side. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated that the way the Ordinance reads is that there is a height limit of 45 feet in 27
any location, so that means there could be 45 foot billboards in town. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney stated that he assumed the language would be reverted back to where it 30
was before to the south side of County Road 10. He noted if the amendment covers both side of 31
County 10, it should be clarified. 32
33
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the purpose is to try to get this one site approved. He stated 34
that if this is approved, there should be no more billboards on Highway 10. He wondered what 35
can the Council do to do that. He stated he truly feels the Council had a good faith agreement 36
with numerous parties that the particular site would be open. He stated he feels that it was not 37
until Phase 2 when Medtronic stated they would pick up the cost if the billboards were not 38
relocated. He stated that when it is the City’s dime, the tune was changed. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated there was never any vote made by the Council to support that 41
position. He stated it is a bad deal to allow one billboard on the south side, and it makes it 42
doubly bad to allow on both sides. He stated Clear Channel now will be happy because they got 43
all of the sites. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mayor Marty stated in the first discussions about buying out or relocating billboards, he stated he 1
would like to keep them out of town. He stated they will be in the main business corridor of 2
Mounds View for 30 years. 3
4
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Flaherty, Marty, Stigney) 5
6
Amendment failed for lack of a majority. 7
8
Mayor Marty pointed out that the Ordinance states that billboards up to 45 feet in height are 9
allowed anywhere. 10
11
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To restrict the billboard height on 12
County Road 10 to 35 feet, and restrict billboard height of all other sites to 45 feet. 13
14
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Amendment motion carried. 15
16
Councilmember Gunn stated that the design elements need to be added to the Ordinance. 17
18
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To add the design elements to the 19
Ordinance. 20
21
Director Ericson indicated this would be added as Item I under Design Standards. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney stated that he would like to see a rendering, because the original concept 24
that was proposed for the golf course was quite a bit different than what was brought forward. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas stated that by putting this language it, it will require plans to be brought 27
to the Council when the billboard goes up. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney stated he does not know what the billboard looks like, so he cannot vote 30
for it. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated that when discussions were first held with Clear Channel, the Council did 33
not like having billboards. He commented that Clear Channel came to the City with cutting edge 34
billboards, and the City looked at four or five renditions. He noted that what the City ended up 35
with was not what the Council had previously authorized. He stated he would like to see the 36
renderings as to what is getting approved before the Ordinance is passed. 37
38
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Marty, Stigney) Amendment motion carried. 39
40
Councilmember Stigney stated that he no longer supports the original motion. He stated he 41
would like to get feedback from residents in regard to the location of the billboards. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and postpone indefinitely 44
Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to Signs 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
and Billboards. 1
2
Mayor Marty stated that everyone in Mounds View will be faced with this. He stated this was 3
posted as a topic for the Town Hall Meeting in the property owner and resident survey. He 4
indicated he would like to find out what the residents are feeling about this issue. 5
6
Councilmember Gunn stressed that all information needs to be provided to the residents in regard 7
to why this is being done, how this came about and what led up to it. She stated there is a lot of 8
information that they do not have. 9
10
Councilmember Thomas stated that this is mostly an excuse to put off the issue. She stated the 11
responsibility of the Council is to vote, and she commented that the Council makes a lot of 12
decisions that have a huge impact and it does not poll the community to see how they feel. She 13
stated that surveys are helpful but if every big decision was polled, the Council is not doing its 14
job. She stated she is not willing to try to do her job by the whims and breezes of a poll because 15
the results are always non-scientific. She stated she has heard from more than enough residents 16
to make a decision. She stressed that putting off the decision is irresponsible. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney stated that something as significant as putting billboards up on County 19
Road 10 for the next 30 years is something that warrants resident feedback. He stated the 20
Council should get resident feedback on all major issues. He stated it is the least the Council can 21
do is to postpone the decision. He stated it is a significant issue that needs additional attention, 22
and it is the Council’s responsibility to do that. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated that it was not a significant enough issue to postpone it before it 25
was changed in the first place. She stated the language that was changed was changed originally 26
in the first place. She indicated the Council has gone back and forth on this issue, and it has 27
always been the Council’s decision to make. 28
29
Councilmember Stigney stated that what was changed was to re-allow billboards on County 30
Road 10. 31
32
Councilmember Thomas stated that when the Ordinance was first brought to the Council, County 33
Road 10 was included, and it was taken out of the Ordinance at the last meeting, and tonight part 34
of it was put back in. 35
36
Mayor Marty agreed with Councilmember Stigney that this is a huge decision that will affect 37
everyone coming and going from Mounds View. He stated the Council makes hard decisions, 38
but it really hears about it when the decision is not the right one. He stressed residents to express 39
their opinions if they feel one way or the other, to let the Council know. He asked residents to 40
come to the Town Hall Meeting and let the City know they feel. He stressed this is a huge 41
decision that will go for 30 years. 42
43
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
Councilmember Flaherty stated he has no problem with public feedback on decision making, but 1
he does not believe the question as presented gives the entire scope of what the possibility is. He 2
stated he does not believe the question as it is stated should be on the Town Hall Survey. 3
4
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Flaherty, Gunn, Thomas) 5
6
Motion fails for lack of a majority. 7
8
Director Ericson asked if the reconsideration of the Ordinance requires that it goes back to the 9
First Reading. 10
11
City Attorney Riggs indicated the Charter is not clear on that issue, but the Council has discretion 12
in the Readings for decision making. He stated the Ordinance was reconsidered, and that pulls it 13
pulls it back to the First Reading. 14
15
Councilmember Stigney withdrew his original motion. 16
17
Mayor Marty withdraw his original second. 18
19
City Attorney Riggs stated that the withdrawals should have occurred at the time of the 20
amendments. 21
22
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To postpone Ordinance 769, an Ordinance 23
Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to Signs and Billboards, until the May 8, 24
2006, City Council meeting. 25
26
Councilmember Stigney asked Councilmember Flaherty what he expects to happen from now 27
until the next Council meeting. Councilmember Flaherty responded that input will be received at 28
the Town Hall Meeting, a rendering will be received, and it will be discussed at the work session. 29
He stated he feels it is warranted at this particular time. 30
31
Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council has already discussed this to a significant extent, 32
and that she does not believe there is any further information that can be deemed from the Town 33
Hall Meeting. She stated that she does not see that it actually changes anything. 34
35
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Gunn, Thomas) Motion carried. 36
37
Mayor Marty asked Mr. McCarver for the renderings as soon as possible. Mr. McCarver stated 38
he will try to do that although he has not made application, but the drawings could be put on 39
white paper. He suggested the previous renderings could be used. 40
41
Director Ericson stated they would be presented at the worksession. 42
43
Mr. Hall asked if the question will be reworded for the Town Hall Meeting. Mayor Marty 44
indicated that the questions are only a draft version. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
1
Mr. Hall stated that it would be a very daunting task to put all the information together on this 2
issue. 3
4
F. Resolution 6795, Step Increase for Nick Fleischhacker, Public Works. 5
6
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained a step wage increase adjustment is 7
recommended for Public Works employee Nick Fleischhacker that is consistent with the 8
Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6795, 11
Step Increase for Nick Fleischhacker, Public Works. 12
13
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 14
15
G. Resolution 6796, Approving the Mounds View City Job Descriptions. 16
17
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that Department Heads along with Staff 18
reviewed all descriptions within their department, to ensure that the Salary Compensation Report 19
and Pay Equity report to be done by Laumeyer & Associates is accurate. 20
21
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that a meeting will be held on May 4, 2006, 22
with all City employees and Laumeyer & Associates. 23
24
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane noted that many of the job descriptions had not been 25
updated since 1997, and some job descriptions have many revisions and corrections. 26
27
City Administrator Ulrich complimented Assistant to the City Administrator Crane for putting all 28
of the job descriptions together, and noted she spent many hours coordinating with Department 29
Heads to put the job descriptions together. He pointed out this is an accurate reflection of the 30
jobs being done. 31
32
Councilmember Stigney asked if it is the Council’s intent to go through the job descriptions one 33
by one, as he had several comments. He wondered if comments should be funneled to Staff. 34
35
Mayor Marty added that he also has a few questions and comments. 36
37
Councilmember Thomas asked how far this would put the City behind with the Salary and 38
Compensation Study to not have it approved for another two weeks. Assistant to the City 39
Administrator Crane stated that this would delay it for a week or two, and that the July 1, 2006 40
deadline would probably not be able to be met for the Salary Compensation Study. 41
42
Councilmember Stigney stated that his changes are minor, and it would not make a difference in 43
the big picture. He suggested tentative agreement could be made by the Council. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane suggested that the Council can ask the Department 1
Heads if there are any questions about the job descriptions. 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich suggested unless there are grievous errors, Staff could move ahead 4
with the consultant. He noted that a lot of the changes are fairly minor in terms of how they 5
impact the value of the jobs. He stated comments could be received in the interim and brought to 6
the Council at the next meeting so that the project is not delayed. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6796, 9
Approving the Mounds View City Job Descriptions, with minor changes to be given to Staff by 10
the Council. 11
12
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13
14
H. Resolution 6799 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the 15
Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the Silver Lake Road 16
Sidewalk Improvement Project. 17
18
Director of Public Works Lee explained that plans and specifications have been prepared and the 19
estimated cost of the project is $546,905. He stated that a bid date will be set at July 6, 2006, as 20
advertisement for bids must occur at least three weeks before the bid date since the contract is 21
over $100,000. 22
23
Councilmembers Flaherty and Thomas left the meeting at 9:14 p.m. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6799 26
Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting 27
a Bid Date for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project, as amended. 28
29
Ayes – 2 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Absent – 2 (Flaherty, Thomas) 30
31
Motion failed for lack of a majority. 32
33
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To reconsider Resolution 6799 Approving the Plans 34
and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the 35
Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project, until all Councilmembers return to the 36
meeting. 37
38
Mayor Marty recessed the meeting at 9:16 p.m. 39
40
Mayor Marty called the meeting back to order at 9:25 p.m. 41
42
Councilmembers Flaherty and Thomas returned to the meeting at 9:25 p.m. 43
44
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
1
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6799 2
Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting 3
a Bid Date for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project, as amended. 4
5
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 6
7
I. Resolution 6800 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the 8
Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the Hidden Hollow South 9
Street and Utility Installation Project. 10
11
Director of Public Works Lee explained that plans and specifications have been prepared and the 12
estimated cost of the project is $132,635. He stated that a bid date will be set at June 1, 2006, as 13
advertisement for bids must occur at least three weeks before the bid date since the contract is 14
over $100,000. 15
16
Director of Public Works Lee explained that the reason for the increased cost is due to the 17
increase of petroleum prices. He pointed out the actual cost will be based on the bids received. 18
He noted the costs will be borne by the developer except for an estimated $3,700 of construction 19
costs for the utility access trail that will be financed by the City. 20
21
Mayor Marty pointed out that there was a typo on the Resolution, and confirmed that it should 22
read the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Project. Director of Public Works Lee stated 23
that is correct. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6800 26
Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting 27
a Bid Date for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project, as amended. 28
29
Director Ericson asked if the amendment ? of the increased estimated cost. Councilmembers 30
Thomas and Flaherty stated it does. 31
32
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33
34
J. Resolution 6801 Approval of the LELS Local 204 (Police Officers) 2006-2007 35
Labor Agreement. 36
37
Assistant to the Administrator Crane explained the terms of the negotiated labor agreement with 38
the LELS Local 204 (Police Officers) for 2006-2007. 39
40
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6801 41
Approval of the LELS Local 204 (Police Officers) 2006-2007 Labor Agreement. 42
43
Councilmember Stigney stated he has a problem with the wording in the contract in regard to 44
insurance and that he does not support it. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
1
Mayor Marty stated that uniform allowances should be addressed at the next contract negotiation, 2
because it was found that the costs stay the same or slightly gone down. 3
4
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 5
6
K. Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue Update 7
8
City Attorney Riggs reviewed the Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue. He stated his opinion 9
did not change after reviewing the additional information because the City’s Code provisions that 10
were cited do not appear to be applicable to this situation. 11
12
City Attorney Riggs stated that in a memorandum to the Council, he cited a case due to a number 13
of reasons and it is one of a number of cases that is similar to this in regard to interpretations of 14
ordinances. He indicated the ordinance is something that is a question of law, and the court 15
would have its own interpretation if it went for review. 16
17
City Attorney Riggs explained the cited case also deals with ordinance vagueness and what 18
standards apply when interpreting ordinances. He stated that Staff interpretation has some 19
credibility, although it is not the final conclusion or the ultimate deciding point, and the courts 20
will look to that. 21
22
City Attorney Riggs stated that an additional point is that the underlying policy of the City Code 23
needs to be looked at when interpreting ordinances, because there are sometimes there are things 24
that are not covered. He stated that what the Council is attempting to do when adopting a zoning 25
ordinance needs to be considered. 26
27
City Attorney Riggs stated that when the ordinance is reviewed by the court, it is strictly 28
construed against the City. He stated this means that if someone complains that an ordinance is 29
adversely enforced against them, they get the benefit of anything that the court looks at or any 30
interpretations that have been made that may be in the favor of the individual that is complaining. 31
He indicated that this is why a City goes through a number of steps to build a record that applies 32
to the matter. 33
34
City Attorney stated the Council needs to looks at this case in the context of the property owner 35
adjacent to the Amundsens. He stated if the Council was to grant what the Amundsens are 36
asking for and somehow require deconstruction of the retaining wall, the Council has to look 37
specifically at how the City could defend or enforce that. He stated it is a potentially vague 38
situation where the City has built out a record. He noted that the issue will be likely construed 39
against the City. He noted this is the same response received by the League of Cities, and that 40
there would be an enforcement issue with the adjacent property owner. 41
42
Mr. Amundsen thanked the Council for bringing this matter forward. He commented that the 43
Council relies on multiple sources for input to make decisions, and that legal counsel is one of 44
these aspects. He stated legal counsel is responsible to advise on legal impacts and not on 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
administrative actions or responsibilities necessarily or solely. He stated the Council may have 1
legal advice that states that no legal issue exists; however, that response may not be the final 2
answer necessary for the Council to make the situation work. He indicated there is not a legal 3
issue, so the decision is in the Council’s hands. He commented that there is not always a legal 4
answer to every issue before the Council. 5
6
Mr. Amundsen stated that the Council was asked to determine if there is a setback for terraces, 7
retaining walls or other similar structures in the code. He stated that City Attorney Riggs advised 8
there is no setback requirement specified in the code. He stated the building department verified 9
that the adjacent property owner indicated he wanted to create a potential parking area and that 10
they advised the owner that it would have to be five feet from the fence in an eleven foot wide 11
area. He stated the fact is that the building department did not deny the permit for the parking 12
area, which does have a setback requirement. He stated if the adjacent property owner wanted a 13
zero setback for a fence, it would have required the property owner to follow a variance process 14
to get approval. He indicated that variances have almost always been denied for a zero setback. 15
16
Mr. Amundsen stated that the issue needs an answer so that he can move forward. 17
18
Mr. Amundsen stated that the other question is whether the area with a 23 to 30 inch high fence 19
should be next to the property line when the code does not specify its application. He stated as a 20
result, under Section 110108, if there is no setback specified, then it must be a denied use permit. 21
He asked if the Council wants to follow its past practice to deny variances for less than five feet 22
for parking areas. 23
24
Mr. Amundsen stated the Council must determine if it wishes to incur expenses as result of 25
another citizen’s action. He indicated he will have to do something about the liability that he 26
now faces because the fence no longer sufficiently limits his liability. He stated that if the City 27
does not allow the variance, then it will be supporting his position that he should not have to 28
incur additional expenses. 29
30
Mr. Amundsen explained the City was provided information that the code does not have a 31
setback specification and does not cover the situation, but the case quoted by City Attorney Riggs 32
needs to be heard by the district court for the applicants’ appeal. He stated that the building 33
department’s interpretation is questionable in the courts if it is not clear and in plain language 34
within the code. He stated that because nothing is in code, he is having a hard time saying that it 35
negates Section 110108, which says that it has to be in code or it is denied. He added that 36
Section 110105 says that if it is in code, on a permit or a document that the City has, that the 37
more restrictive of the restrictions has to be applied. He noted that there is not an allowed zero 38
setback for any structure except fences. 39
40
Mr. Amundsen asked the Council to direct the Community Development Department to require 41
the adjacent property owner to move the structure back to a five foot minimum setback for the 42
structure that was requested for the parking area. He noted this action by the Council will 43
support the code ordinance that is adopted and will support the primary objective and policy in 44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 25
that the building code is to ensure public health and safety within the neighborhoods and 1
properties. 2
3
Valerie Amundsen, stated this has become more of a bigger issue, and that a citizen of Mounds 4
View needs to be able to look at the code and it needs to be clear. She noted that they have been 5
to the Planning Commission twice and they have not dealt with it there. She stated that because 6
it is not clear, the code says the City has to go with the more restrictive and safe option. She 7
noted that City Attorney Riggs indicated that the code is not clear. She stated the code needs to 8
indicate that the setbacks can be waived with the variance process. She stated this is not going to 9
restrict the City that retaining walls cannot be where they are needed. She stated that in a case 10
such as this, it is the Council’s responsibility is to err on the side of safety. She stated they are 11
cautious and concerned about the neighborhood for its safety, and that should be the Council’s 12
concern. 13
14
Ms. Amundsen stated that some people think they can do whatever they want on their property 15
and this is not true. She stressed that she is very familiar with the restrictions of the code when 16
their home was built. She noted that because of the practice that retaining walls can go over the 17
property line as fences, should not mean that this has become code. She stressed that the issue 18
needs to be addressed or sent back to the Planning Commission. She asked the Council to be 19
responsible and watch out for the community. She stated that virtually nothing is allowed next to 20
the property line other than fences. 21
22
Ms. Amundsen stated she feels like they have researched the issue well and are confident that it 23
will hold up. She stated they are not trying to make trouble for the neighbor, but rather to protect 24
their pool area and also to protect the perimeter of people’s property. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas stated that the structure is a retaining wall. She stated at some future 27
time, a surface may be improved and become a parking structure, but for now it is a retaining 28
wall. She indicated she did a code search for retaining wall and there are a couple of references 29
to retaining walls. She stated there is no specific reference for a retaining wall setback, but there 30
is an implication that retaining walls are allowed straight up to the property line. She stated that 31
it is as not as clear as it could be, and it should be sent back to the Planning Commission to look 32
at some of the issues, but just because there are references to retaining walls at property lines, it 33
does indicate that retaining walls are to be allowed next to the property line. She stated she 34
cannot see any violation by the adjacent property owner. 35
36
City Attorney Riggs commended the Amundsen’s research, and stated that the issue is implicitly 37
covered in the code. 38
39
City Attorney Riggs pointed out that the parking surface is a different situation than the retaining 40
wall issue. 41
42
Mr. Amundsen asked Director Ericson if the applicant asked about parking when he showed the 43
space to the City. Director Ericson stated that he may or may not have, but at some point, the 44
setbacks for vehicles were discussed when there was a vehicle was parked at the location. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 26
1
Ms. Amundsen mentioned that their fence goes around the perimeter of the yard, and there is a 2
height limitation on fences in Mounds View. She stated that if she had a retaining wall next to 3
her own fence, the clarification on retaining walls could easily have been to clarify that the fence 4
could not be a certain height. 5
6
Ms. Amundsen stated the reference does not infer that it is in regard to adjacent properties, and it 7
does not address the setback issue. She stated it was an oversight when the language was added 8
that it was trying to address the fact that high fences are not wanted in the City. She stated that 9
when she built a retaining wall next to their fence, they were told that they need a setback. She 10
stated that somewhere the language has been changed. She stated the code does not think of 11
everything, and the City is doing a disservice to property owners. She stressed the City is called 12
to err on the side of caution and safety, and if the code is not clear, it says it should be more 13
restrictive. 14
15
Ms. Amundsen stated the City should give people the opportunity to ask for variances. She 16
stated the reality is that all kinds of structures can be built on property and the code cannot list 17
every structure, and that is why code is written in such a way that it is more restrictive than 18
permissive, and that when something is not specifically listed as permissible, it is not allowed. 19
She stressed that this is not just for their case, but for all citizens of Mounds View. 20
21
Councilmember Flaherty asked what the retaining wall is made of. Mr. Amundsen stated it is 22
made of green treated wood and anchored in cement. He stated it raised the earth approximately 23
two feet from its natural line. He stated it is a retaining wall for new earth, and noted that a truck 24
brought in a full load of grading fill. 25
26
Councilmember Flaherty confirmed that what caused the retaining wall is the additional fill. Mr. 27
Amundsen stated that is correct. Mrs. Amundsen indicated there was not a grading permit 28
issued. 29
30
Councilmember Flaherty asked Director Ericson if he talked to the neighbor and what his 31
reaction is. Director Ericson indicated he did not want to speak for the resident, but he believes 32
the resident would say that he constructed what was constructed based on the ability to grade up 33
to where the retaining wall was located. He stated there was some issue over what permit the 34
applicant did apply for, and a fence permit for a 23 inch high fence raised some issues. He noted 35
Staff visited the property and determined that it was not necessarily a fence that was being 36
constructed but a retaining wall with the intent to grade the area flat along the side of garage. He 37
stated that whether the applicant may have been simply leveling the area to clean up debris or 38
remove growth or weeds. 39
40
Director Ericson stated how the area will be used is the deciding factor to determine what the 41
setback is. He stated if grass is planted, then there is no issue, but if it is a parking pad, it needs a 42
five foot setback. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 27
Mr. Amundsen commented that the property owner has used the space for parking once, and it 1
was brought to the building inspector’s attention at that time, and shortly thereafter the vehicle 2
was removed. He stated the intent was to use it as a parking area. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty asked if one can terrace up to the lot line. Director Ericson stated he 5
would rather not use that term. 6
7
Councilmember Thomas stated the code indicates a terrace is a porch area. 8
9
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the only need for a retaining wall is because of a change in 10
grade. He stated the change in grade precipitated a retaining wall. He asked what a change in 11
grade means and what is in the code for that. 12
13
Director Ericson indicated there is no setback. 14
15
Mayor Marty asked if they needed a grading permit for a change in grade. Director Ericson 16
stated there is a threshold below which a permit is not required, and the Public Works department 17
has that discretion. He stated that when the permit was brought forward last year, Public Works 18
indicated that no grading permit was needed because it was not an area of fill substantial enough 19
to require a grading permit. He noted this is not in writing, but he asked the Public Works 20
department to review it and they indicated it was not a problem, and based on that, the 21
Community Development Department issued a permit for the work to proceed based on the fact 22
that it was a retaining wall with associated fill. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
Mayor Marty wondered if the permit was ever changed when the adjacent property owner first 29
came in and initially applied for a permit for a 23 inch fence. Director Ericson stated it does not 30
really matter if it was changed, as the permit was issued for work to proceed, and whether it 31
shows up as a fence or retaining wall is immaterial. He stated the end product is what the City is 32
looking at. 33
34
Mayor Marty stated that it has been mentioned that if something is not listed in the code, then it 35
is not allowed. He stated that the City has discovered that there are a number of holes in the code 36
to look into and readdress. He stated that unfortunately for the Amundsens, they discovered the 37
holes for the City due to their situation, and because of that, it would probably be grandfathered 38
in because it has not came up in past. He stated this type of work has been done in different parts 39
of the City, but if it is not listed, that is to protect the City from people bringing in different 40
things. 41
42
Director Ericson stated that the City has to look at the intent, and every code needs the clause that 43
states if it is not explicitly permitted, then it is not allowed. He commented there are holes to 44
allow what one would naturally see in any residential district. He stated birdhouses are not listed 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 28
in the code, and by strict interpretation of the code, it would not be allowed. He stated there are 1
features that may not be contemplated but they are not intended to be restricted because they do 2
not show in the code. He stated that certainly birdhouses are allowed in the City. 3
4
Director Ericson stated that the fact that there is not an interpretation or a definition of a retaining 5
wall in the code does not change the fact that this is something that is not unexpected in a 6
residential district or between property lines. He stated it is a feature that is commonly used in 7
landscaping as well as to demarcate where a property line is. He stated that because it is not 8
strictly permitted, the City has latitude to have the discretion to say that it is allowed by virtue of 9
the fact that it is same or similar or permitted as part of the residential landscape. He stated he 10
disagrees because it is not strictly defined that it not is permitted. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas stated that the situation is not just about the Amundsens, but rather that 13
the City needs to look at the situation across the board. She stated she does not believe the 14
provision applies to this particular situation. She stressed there is a strong implication in the 15
code that retaining walls are allowed at property lines, even though there may not be a definition. 16
She stated that if the issue goes to court, it will come down to what has been the City’s past 17
practice, the consistency of interpretation, and the implication of the code. She stated the City 18
does allow retaining walls on the property line, but the code does not say how it is applied. 19
20
Director Ericson explained the Planning Commission looked at whether there should be a 21
definition of a retaining wall in the code and if there should be a setback for a retaining wall in 22
the code. He mentioned they also looked at issues relating to fences and terraces, and they have 23
not taken official action, they have directed Staff to bring forward additional research. He stated 24
the Planning Commission’s intent is to add a definition of what a retaining wall is and indicate 25
that retaining walls are allowed up to the property line. He stated that the Planning Commission 26
felt that there was not a need to add the definition of a terrace, as it was defined similar to a patio 27
in the code. He stated the Planning Commission felt there should not be a setback for fences and 28
the code should remain as it currently states. He explained the Planning Commission will be 29
bringing forward a recommendation that addresses retaining walls, and the recommendation will 30
be that retaining walls are allowed up to the property line and a definition of a retaining wall will 31
be added. 32
33
Mrs. Amundsen stated the code makes references to ornamental items that can be moved. She 34
stated that there is a definition in the code that defines that a structure is permanently cemented in 35
the ground. She stated one has to be careful in comparing a birdhouse to a structure as they are 36
not similar. 37
38
Mrs. Amundsen asked City Attorney Riggs what his opinion is on the fact that the code states 39
that when something is not specifically allowed, that the City should err on the side of the more 40
restrictive. She wondered how this phrase is being overlooked in this situation. She stated that 41
all parties agree that is a vague situation and there is no clear cut answer. 42
43
City Attorney Riggs stated it is a policy decision in the interpretation, and it is something that 44
needs to be filled in. He stated that every code has that provision and no code is perfect. He 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 29
stated the courts will look at the past fact patterns of the community and the overall broad 1
interpretation of how the code has been utilized. He stated that this would be very strong for a 2
court to look at. 3
4
Mr. Amundsen stated a single sentence would be considered vague, and a strong position would 5
be that it is specifically included in the setback code. He stated the Council needs to make a 6
policy decision in regard to if a neighbor is dissatisfied with the way that the Community 7
Development Department has decided something and that the past practice is to deny zero 8
setback, what is the policy going to be. He wondered if zero setbacks will not be allowed or if 9
they will be allowed at the discretion of the City Administrator. He stated that the current 10
administrative variance allowance specifies that the City Administrator can determine up to two 11
feet. He wondered if the Council will follow the current policy or change policy this evening and 12
allow it to be at the discretion of Community Development department. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas stated past practice has been to allow retaining walls with zero setbacks, 15
so to do anything else would be the change of policy. She indicated the Council has given other 16
structures setbacks. She stated the City would have a significant amount of properties to deal 17
with if the policy was changed. 18
19
Mayor Marty recalled that several years ago, the Community Development department was given 20
some discretion so that everything would not have to come to the Council. He stated that 21
perhaps this is a point where setbacks need to be looked at, too. He stated he was under the 22
impression that even if the Community Development Department approves something, that it 23
still had to go before the Planning Commission for a cursory evaluation. 24
25
Director Ericson stated the administrative variance process is irrelevant in this situation. He 26
stated there are some checks and balances in regard to an administrative variance process, and it 27
does not give the Community Development Director any latitude to grant setback variances. He 28
explained it allows for a reduction to not less than 25 percent of the setback required, but 29
adjoining property owners have to be notified, and if there are no objections, Planning 30
Commission performs a cursory review. He stated if a property owner rejects the reduction, there 31
would be a full variance process. He stated this is only for setback variances. 32
33
Mayor Marty asked if it was acceptable that the area filled is not planted or sodded. He 34
wondered if it would nullify the process if the individual were to park a car there again. 35
36
Director Ericson stated that specifically with regard to the property owner on Pleasant View 37
Drive, if a vehicle is parked there, it would be in violation of City code, and the property owner 38
would receive a notice of violation. He stated this has not occurred since the property owner 39
was informed of the code. He stated it does not nullify the grading or the retaining wall if a 40
violation was to occur again. 41
42
Mayor Marty wondered if the property owner could put in gravel instead of landscaping. 43
Director Ericson explained a resident can have some landscape rock along the property, but the 44
moment the area is used for parking, it becomes a parking area. 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 30
1
Mayor Marty asked if there is any leeway to bring the structure down. Director Ericson 2
explained the structure is 24 inches tall, and the fill is at that level or an inch, so he was not sure 3
what could be brought down. 4
5
Mayor Marty wondered if it came up as high as the structure. Mrs. Amundsen stated it does. 6
7
Director Ericson indicated that the property owner is willing to cut off the 4x4 posts so it is level 8
with retaining wall. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney asked if the Planning Commission came up with any recommendations 11
regarding retaining walls up to edge of the property. Director Ericson reported that the Planning 12
Commission felt that a retaining wall up to the property line was appropriate, and that they would 13
make an amendment to explicitly permit that in the same section where fences are permitted and 14
defined as to where they are allowed and what the appropriate setback is. He stated the Planning 15
Commission felt that there was no difference as a fence in that regard and adding the definition to 16
the code would be a worthy amendment. 17
18
Councilmember Flaherty wondered if the adjacent property owner is willing to make any 19
movement or concessions. Director Ericson explained that the property owner indicated he 20
would cut down the 4x4 posts to make the area flush with the rest of the retaining wall. He 21
stated his position agrees with Staff’s position that the retaining wall and the grading is 22
consistent with City code, past practice and past policy. 23
24
Mr. Amundsen stated that they were hoping to have the structure moved back two feet. He stated 25
he is going to need to spend money to rebuild the fence as a result of the neighbor’s activity. 26
27
Mrs. Amundsen stated they will incur costs although they do not want to, because they are 28
concerned about safety. She stated it is annoying that they are put in this predicament when the 29
pool has been there over ten years. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated that he really does not see a solution that is going to make anyone happy. He 32
stated that unless the property owner starts parking his car in the area, the structure cannot be 33
moved back. 34
35
Mr. Amundsen stated that he continues to be frustrated because when he spoke to the neighbor, 36
he indicated that he wanted to build a parking space. He mentioned he talked to Director Ericson 37
about parking at the last meeting. He stated he is confused why the Council does not see the 38
same intent. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas stated that the two issues have no relation to each other. She stated a 41
retaining wall is not a parking surface. She stated that from a legal standpoint, a retaining wall 42
might allow for a parking surface, but it is not the same thing. She noted that regardless of 43
whether a parking surface is created, it is still a different structure that is not related. 44
45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 31
Mr. Amundsen asked City Attorney Riggs that when the act of an individual indicates intent. 1
City Attorney Riggs stated that it depends on the issue. 2
3
Councilmember Thomas stated that if the car is parked closer, there is a clear code violation, but 4
until that happens, there is not a code violation. She noted it comes down to a matter of 5
subjective interpretation and she cannot see that there has been a code violation for the Council 6
to enforce. 7
8
Mayor Marty stated the Planning Commission needs to clear up the code. 9
10
Mr. Amundsen confirmed that the Council’s policy is that retaining walls can be built up to the 11
property line and that this policy is set by non-action. He confirmed that in past practices, the 12
building department has approved permits for retaining walls up to the property line, will 13
continue to stand. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated that is correct until it is changed. He noted the Planning Commission will 16
start looking at the code. 17
18
Councilmember Flaherty commented that the adjacent property owner is not before the Council 19
to determine if there is an amiable situation. 20
21
Mr. Amundsen stated he is asking the Council to have the other party be engaged. He wondered 22
if the building department could assure that the additional six or eight inches will be removed by 23
the adjacent property owner. Mr. Amundsen pointed out that he will still have to put up more 24
fencing and find remedies to pay for the additional fencing 25
26
City Administrator Ulrich stated there is nothing precluding the City from getting all parties 27
together to work out an agreement. He stated the City would be willing to potentially mediate 28
this issue. 29
30
Mrs. Amundsen asked if City Administrator Ulrich would set up the meeting with the adjacent 31
property owner. City Administrator Ulrich indicated he would. 32
33
Mrs. Amundsen stated she they are reasonable and concerned citizens and that they hope to leave 34
with the impression that they never intended to be bad neighbors. She stated they plan to live in 35
the neighborhood for many more years. She indicated that unless something can be worked out 36
in the next couple of weeks, they will be forced to spend money to improve the fence. She stated 37
they will probably come to the Council if the situation cannot be resolved with the neighbor. She 38
commented that they feel forced into that situation. 39
40
8. CONSENT AGENDA 41
42
Mayor Marty asked to remove Item C. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 32
A. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, May 8, 2006 to Reconsider an 1
Expired Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2832 Woodale 2
Drive. 3
B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday, May 8, 2006 for a Second 4
Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 5
of the Mounds View City Charter. 6
C. Resolution 6797 Designating the 2005 Mounds View Citizenship Award. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To Approve the Consent Agenda Items A and B. 9
10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
8C. Resolution 6797 Designating the 2005 Mounds View Citizenship Award. 13
14
Mayor Marty pointed out that Mr. Frank Silvas was nominated and received letters of 15
recommendation. He explained that Mr. Silvis will be recognized at the beginning of the Town 16
Hall Meeting on Saturday. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and approve Resolution 19
6797 Designating the 2005 Mounds View Citizenship Award. 20
21
Councilmember Flaherty commented that there were numerous letters of recommendation for 22
Mr. Silvis and he is very deserving of this honor. 23
24
Mayor Marty noted that two individuals were nominated this year, and he hopes that the other 25
individual gets nominated next year as he is also very worthy. 26
27
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 32
33
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 34
35
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 36
37
A. April 10, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 38
39
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To Approve the April 10, 2006 City Council 40
meeting minutes as corrected and with corrections that Staff received. 41
42
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 43
44
11. REPORTS 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 33
1
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 2
3
1. Mayor Marty 4
a. Ramsey County League of Local Government Presentation. 5
6
Mayor Marty reviewed that the Ramsey County League of Local Governments will have a 7
presentation on the threat of an influenza pandemic on Thursday, April 27, 2006, from 7:00 p.m. 8
to 9:00 p.m. at the Little Canada City Hall, in regard to what local governments can do. He noted 9
this is a public meeting, but they are asking for RSVPs to (651) 222-7409, Extension 203. 10
11
b. Garbage Cans on Disc Golf Field. 12
13
Mayor M arty noted that some individuals are asking if three garbage cans can be placed on the 14
Disc Golf Field, because there is no place to throw trash. 15
16
c. Announce the Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, April 29, 2006. 17
18
Mayor Marty stated the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Saturday, April 29, 2006 19
at 9:00 a.m. 20
21
B. Reports of Staff 22
23
1. Community Development Director Ericson 24
a. Medtronic Permit Fee Update 25
26
Director Ericson reviewed that in regard to the Medtronic project, the valuation for the buildings 27
are $26 million more than anticipated. He noted that G&H Consultants were contracted to 28
conduct the plan review and would be compensated 25 percent of the plan review fees. He noted 29
the Resolution included a maximum dollar amount, and due to the increased building valuation, 30
the fees will be higher. He noted Staff will present a Resolution at the next Council meeting to 31
revise the original agreement. 32
33
b. Premium Stop Update 34
35
Director Ericson reported that nothing of significance was found when the tanks were removed 36
on the Premium Stop property, and that the inspector indicated that the site was fairly clean. He 37
stated copies of Phase 1 and 2 environmental analyses will be reviewed, but it has been 38
demonstrated that it is a clean site. He noted the City will be seeking Minnesota Pollution 39
Control concurrence that it is in a clean site. He noted the City is working on the title work, and 40
it is conceivable that this item may be back before the City Council to obtain authorization to 41
acquire the property on May 8, 2006. He noted that the property owner did everything that was 42
asked of him. 43
44
2. City Administrator Ulrich 45
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 34
1
City Administrator Ulrich explained that a draft questionnaire has been prepared for the Town 2
Hall Meeting. He stated that the survey does not have to be conducted and it is not scientific, but 3
it does give residents that attend the Town Hall Meeting the chance to give opinions and 4
feedback. 5
6
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed some of the questions on the survey. He wondered if the 7
Council wants to proceed with the survey or change any of the questions. 8
9
City Administrator Ulrich agreed that it would be difficult to give all the background information 10
to the billboard question. He stated it is a question that would have some obvious answers. 11
12
Councilmember Stigney stated that something should indicate that the billboards will be in the 13
City for the next 30 years. 14
15
Councilmember Thomas stated that County 10 should be broken up as a definition. She stated 16
that no one is proposing it for the length of County Road 10, and it should be presented as it is 17
being proposed. 18
19
Mayor Marty suggested adding the language “south of Woodale Drive to the Mermaid” on 20
County Highway 10. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas suggested the questionnaire could be double sided to allow for a place 23
for people to write in comments. 24
25
Councilmember Stigney suggested adding “in accordance with the current street policy” to the 26
seventh question. The Council concurred. 27
28
Councilmember Stigney suggested that the preference of bonding or TIF for the funding source 29
should be asked for the current street reconstruction projects. 30
31
Councilmember Thomas stated that gets into the specifics and it may get too complicated. 32
33
Director Ericson stated this could be a problem if a person answering does not know what TIF is 34
or what the implication is. 35
36
Mayor Marty suggested leaving the question as it is as more of a general question without having 37
to go into the details. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney wondered how a resident can answer the question if the impact of the 40
funding mechanism is not discussed. He stated the current policy says the neighborhood is asked 41
how it wants it reconstructed. 42
43
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 35
City Administrator stated that last year when this question was adopted, the City was in a 1
different place with the street improvement plan. He suggested there is less of a need to ask a 2
street question. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated that it is a decent question because it encourages residents to take 5
part in the process, but she does not want it to get too complicated. 6
7
The Council, with the exception of Councilmember Stigney, agreed to leave the question as 8
stated. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney stated that the eighth question does not indicate what the funding source 11
is. 12
13
Mayor Marty suggested this question should be removed because the second option is not an 14
option anymore. 15
16
Councilmember suggested that the second option should read that no changes are needed. 17
18
Councilmember Stigney stated that it does not define the fitness center that is being considered. 19
He asked if the question can be pulled. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated this question might be difficult to work out right now with the 22
current situation. 23
24
The Council agreed to remove the question. 25
26
Mayor Marty stated that Staff made good choices on the questions that will be asked. 27
28
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the church indicated that April would be the last month that 29
they would be occupying the building. He noted the City will be sending a final invoice for 30
services and space. He noted they were paying $1,500 per month to Canyon Grill for the space 31
they were occupying, so this will be empty space. 32
33
Mayor Marty asked if they have a contract with Canyon Grill. City Administrator Ulrich stated it 34
appears to be a 30 day contract, and City Attorney Riggs is reviewing. 35
36
City Attorney Riggs stated there is a 180 day notice provision in the lease, but it is not there any 37
more. He stated that they appear to be on a 30 day term at this point, although the City is the 38
successor under the lease. He noted Staff will resolve that and send a notice to clarify what is 39
going on. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas stated that the City was clear when the situation was terminated with 42
Canyon Grill that was set up as a 30 day term. 43
44
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 36
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the church indicated when Canyon Grill left that they were 1
interested in continuing the lease, and never gave any indication that they were leaving. 2
3
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 1, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 4
Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 8, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 5
6
13. ADJOURNMENT 7
8
The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 p.m. 9
10
Transcribed by: 11
12
Annette Anderson 13
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 14