HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/07/24
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, July 24, 2006
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give
your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three
minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Resolution 6868 Accepting the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended
December 31, 2005.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 pm - Public Hearing to Consider the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 776, an
Ordinance adopting the Five Year Financial Plan.
B. 7:10 pm - Public Hearing to consider a Partial Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation
Associated with Lot 5, Hidden Hollow, Requested by Dave Regal Builders.
C. 7:15 pm - Public Hearing to Consider the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 774, an
ordinance Amending Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to
Dog Kennels
D. 7:20 pm - Public Hearing to Consider the Appeal of a Variance Denial for a 45 Foot Tall
Billboard at 2200 County Road 10
E. Consideration of Resolution 6875 pertaining to an Interim Use Permit (IUP) Application for a
Billboard at 2200 County Road 10
F. 7:25 pm – Public Hearing and Consideration for Resolution 6888, a consideration of a
Preliminary Plat for a Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road
G. Resolution 6884, Considering an Amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter as
Proposed by the Mounds View Charter Commission and Directing Staff to Prepare Language to
be Placed on the Ballot for a Vote of the Qualified Voters at the Next General Election Pursuant
to the Requirements of Minnesota Statute 410.12.
H. Resolution 6889 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Medtronic Utility Extension Project
I. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 778, an Ordinance Rezoning the Properties
Located at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the Back Half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3,
Medium Density Residential, in Support of Integra Homes Request.
J. Resolution 6890 Approving Change Order No. 2 for the Random Park Building Replacement
Project.
K. Resolution 6874 Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik,
and Associates to Assist the City with a Traffic Study of the Northwest Area of the City.
L. Resolution 6892 Approving the Selection of Oops Dinner Theatre as a Mounds View
Community Center tenant and Authorizing staff to prepare an Interim Lease Agreement.
City Council Agenda
July 24, 2006
Page 2
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution 6881 Removal of Propane Tank/Filling Station
B. Licenses for Approval
C. Resolution 6887 Approving the 2006 Festival in the Park Agreement
D. Resolution 6885 Approval to hire a Police Officer to Fill the Current Opening on the Police
Department
E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, August 14, 2006, at 7:05pm Consider a Conditional Use
Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2932 Woodale Drive.
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 26, 2006 Regular Session
B. July 10, 2006 Regular Session
C. July 10, 2006 Executive Session
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: August 7, 2006 at 7pm
Next Council Meeting: August 14, 2006 at 7pm
Item No: 7B
Meeting Date: July 24, 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, Introduction and First Reading of
Ordinance 777, an Ordinance Approving a Partial
Vacation of a Drainage and Utility Easement Associated
with the Hidden Hollow Major Subdivision
Introduction:
The City Council approved the Hidden Hollow final plat on June 28, 2004. The plat created
seventeen new executive home sites south of County Road H2. Most of the lots have been
sold and developed and the project is nearing completion. One of the last lots to be
developed is Lot 5, located directly south from County Road H2 and situated on the bend of
Hidden Hollow Court.
Dave Regal Construction (DRC) has submitted a request for a new home to be constructed
on Lot 5 and have a buyer for which they intend to construct a handicapped accessible
home. While preparing the floor plan for the home, it was discovered that the easement
dedicated for drainage and utility purposes encroached too far into the lot to allow for the
preferred design alternative to be constructed. As a result, DRC is requesting that 1,563
square feet of the easement be vacated.
Discussion:
The applicant has enlisted the assistance of Plowe Engineering, Inc. to assess the accuracy
of the dedicated easement. Plowe’s report indicates that the easement, as drafted by Sunde
Engineering for developer ProCraft Homes, was intended to protect the 100 year high water
level of the stormwater management pond that was dedicated over the southern lots in
Hidden Hollow. The easement in question, as it relates to Lot 5, covers area in excess of the
100 year elevation. Plowe recommends vacating that part of the easement area beyond the
100 year elevation.
After receipt of the request from DRC, staff forwarded Plowe’s report and the certificate of
survey to Sunde Engineering to get their opinion given that they drafted the easement for
dedication. Staff discussed this with the engineer from Sunde who confirmed that the
easement area appeared to cover land beyond the 100 year pond HWL and saw no reason
to not approve the requested vacation. Staff forwarded the applicant’s submittal and Sunde’s
response to Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA) who reviewed this ProCraft
Homes stormwater management component for the City.
To vacate an easement or other public interest in a parcel, the City must determine that the
easement no longer serves a public purpose. In this case, our consulting engineer BRAA
confirms that the requested vacation of the 1,563 square feet would not be detrimental to the
overall function of the easement area in that this section of the easement was dedicated in
excess of the intended area and in excess of what was needed to cover the stormwater
management pond.
DRC Vacation Report
July 24, 2006
Page 2
Recommendation:
Open the public hearing and consider testimony regarding this request from staff, the
applicant and any affected residents and property owners. Based upon the recommendation
of the three engineering firms, staff feels confident in recommending approval of the
requested vacation subject to the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District. Attached
for the Council’s consideration is Ordinance 777, an ordinance which approves the partial
vacation of a drainage and utility easement on Lot 5, Hidden Hollow, subject to RCWD
approval.
Please do not “close” the public hearing--staff requests the Council continue the public
hearing to the August 14th meeting to allow for additional public comment and feedback due
to a delay in sending the hearing notice to the New Brighton Bulletin for publication.
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Certificate of Survey
4. Letter from Applicant
5. Letter from Plowe Engineering, dated June 29, 2006
6. Letter from Sunde Engineering, dated July 17, 2006
7. Ordinance 777
Location Map
COUNTY ROAD H2
HIDDEN HOLLOW COURT
Lot 5
Kirsten Pauly, PE/PG, Principal
Brian H. Mundstock, PE, Principal
Mike Kettler, PE, Principal
Consulting Civil Engineers
17 July 2006
Mr. Jim Ericson
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Re: Hidden Hollow, Block 1, Lot 5
Mr. Ericson,
After reviewing the plans for Lot 5 of the Hidden Hollow development it appears there should be no
problem vacating and redescribing the drainage and utility easement associated with this lot to better align
with the 100-yr HWL contour of 891.23. The current easement overcompensates for the 100-yr HWL
and therefore can be revised to better accommodate this boundary.
Contact me if you have any questions or need more information.
Sincerely,
Joe Galluzzi
SUNDE ENGINEERING, PLLC
CC: Becky Baune (Dave Regel Construction)
SUNDE ENGINEERING, PLLC
10830 Nesbitt Avenue South • Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-3100
Phone: (952) 881-3344 • Fax: (952) 881-1913 • E-Mail: info@sundecivil.com
ORDINANCE NO. 777
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A PARTIAL VACATION OF A DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE HIDDEN HOLLOW MAJOR
SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View was granted a drainage and utility easement
for stormwater management purposes in 2004 within and associated with the HIDDEN
HOLLOW plat; and,
WHEREAS, Dave Regal Construction (DRC) has submitted an application to vacate
part of the drainage and utility easement on the following legally described parcel:
Lot 5, HIDDEN HOLLOW
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the easement area to be vacated from Lot 5, HIDDEN HOLLOW is
legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 5, Block 1, HIDDEN HOLLOW, Ramsey County, Minnesota,
according to the recorded plat thereof, dedicated as drainage and utility
easement on said plat, described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 5; thence North 01
degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds West (assumed bearing) 70.23 feet along the
west line of said Lot 5 to the drainage and utility easement reference line as
shown on said plat; thence South 71 degrees 47 minutes 20 seconds East
along said reference line 30.49 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence North 80 degrees 34 minutes 32 seconds East along said
reference line 69.21 feet; thence North 57 degrees 51 minutes 23 seconds
East along said reference line 14.90 feet; thence South 04 degrees 42
minutes 19 seconds West 10.44 feet; thence South 48 degrees 18 minutes 38
seconds West 30.56 feet; thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds
West 15.53 feet; thence South 82 degrees 02 minutes 15 seconds West 26.33
feet; thence North 37 degrees 38 minutes 26 seconds West 29.15 feet to the
point of beginning.
Ordinance 777
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby amended to
include reference to the following Special Ordinance No. 777.
Subd. 1. The City has made a determination that the drainage and utility easement
area as described herein and illustrated on Exhibit A does not serve a public purpose, and
as such, it is in the public interest to vacate said easement area.
Subd. 2. The City Council of the City of Mounds View finds that there is no public
interest or purpose served in retaining the easement area described and proposed to be
vacated.
Subd. 3. That described part of the drainage and utility easement as shown on
Exhibit A is hereby vacated.
SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days after its publication and upon
approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD).
First reading and introduction by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th
day of July, 2006.
Public hearing, second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View
this 14th day of August, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
City Attorney
(SEAL)
Exhibit A. Lot 5, HIDDEN HOLLOW
Item No: 7C
Meeting Date: July 24, 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 and Consideration of an Ordinance
Amending the Procedures and Regulations Pertaining
to Dog Kennels
Introduction:
Upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff has drafted an ordinance to
amend Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code that would eliminate
residential dog / cat Kennels as a permitted conditional use in residential districts.
Discussion:
The basis for this proposed amendment is that presently any resident with three or four dogs
has to go through a conditional use permit (CUP) process with the planning commission and
city council subject to redundant public hearing and notification requirement. The problem
with the process is that a CUP runs with the land, not the property owner, which means if the
resident gets a CUP then moves, the CUP stays at the former property, which is not the
intent. The other rationale behind the amendment is that having three or four dogs is not
really a land-use issue. The licensing requirement remains essentially the same; the primary
change is to simply drop the CUP requirement from the process. Other changes include
adding language to define persons ineligible for a kennel license and establishing criteria and
a mechanism through which a license may be revoked for just cause.
By adopting these changes, residents would still need to present a petition bearing the
signatures of at least 50% of their neighbors within 500 feet if they would like to have three or
four dogs, however they would no longer be required to wait six weeks to go through the
Conditional Use Permit and public hearing process.
Planning Commission Action:
At their meeting on July 5, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 842-06
which recommends approval of the attached Ordinance 774. The Planning Commission
recommended that the “persons ineligible” section be strengthened so that people cited or
charged with animal cruelty offenses would not be granted a license. The prosecuting
attorney reviewed the ordinance and drafted the “persons ineligible” language.
Ord 774 Report
July 24, 2006
Page 2
Recommendation:
Hold the public hearing and take testimony from staff and any interested parties. Review the
proposed amendments and if found acceptable, introduce and approve the first reading of
Ordinance 774, an ordinance amending Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code relating to dog kennels. If the City Council would like additional information
or would prefer to continue discussion to your next meeting, that is also an option.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 842-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTERS 701 AND 1106 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO DOG KENNELS
WHEREAS, City Staff has identified sections of Code relating to Dog Kennels which
is in need of amendment; and,
WHEREAS, presently the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a resident
apply for a kennel license AND conditional use permit (CUP) to own three or four dogs in
the City; and,
WHEREAS, the approval process and requirements for a residential dog kennel are
redundant, excessive, time consuming and costly for residents and in need of modification;
and,
WHEREAS, owning three or four dogs is not a land-use issue nor a planning issue
that would warrant approval of a Conditional Use Permit but rather a matter of licensure;
and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to
the City Code is warranted and justified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of amendments to Chapters 701 and 1106 of the
Mounds View Municipal Code as represented in the attached Exhibit A.
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 5th day of July, 2006.
_____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO. 774
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE CHAPTERS
701 AND 1106 RELATING TO “DOG KENNELS”
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 701.04, Subd. 8 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
Kennels is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out
to read as follows:
Subd. 8. Kennels:
a. Licensing requirements: All dog kennels must first obtain a special use permit as
required in Title 1100 of this Code. The zoning classifications as required under
Chapter 1103 and Section 1104.02 of this Code must be conformed with. Regardless
of any provision in Title 1100 of this Code, the The owner of a proposed dog kennel
shall submit a license application and present a petition to the Clerk / Administrator
Council signed by more than fifty percent (50%) of all registered landowners or those
occupying land within five hundred feet (500’) of the proposed kennel who agree to the
establishment of the kennel. The petition shall contain, among other items of
information, the number and species of dogs intended to be kept on the
premises, whether the yard or kennel area is or will be fenced and whether the
dogs would be raised for breeding purposes. Upon the receipt of the petition and
license application, the Clerk / Administrator shall present the petition and
application to the City Council for their consideration. Council will then set a
hearing for a special use permit, as provided for in Title 1100 of this Code. The petition
shall contain, among other items of information, how many dogs the petitioner intends
to keep on the premises. (Ord. 696, 4-22-02)
b. License fee: The annual license fee for dog kennels shall be established by
resolution of the City Council. The license fees are due September 1 of each year.
(Ord. 696, 4-22-02)
c. Cleanliness and order; nuisance declared: Kennels and the premises around the
kennel shall be kept in a clean, quiet, orderly and sanitary condition so as not to
constitute a nuisance as defined in Chapter 607 of this Code and in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 561.01. In determining whether a nuisance exists, consideration shall
be given to the kennel’s location, location of other residences, and general character of
the neighborhood.
Ordinance 774
Page 2
d. Revocation: A k ennel license may be revoked by action of the Council for just
cause after providing the license holder with an opportunity to be heard. Just
cause shall include any violations of this Code reasonably related to the
operation of the dog kennel and/or treatment of animals.
e. Persons Ineligible. No license shall be granted to an applicant who has
mistreated animals or has been convicted for animal cruelty offenses.
SECTION 2. Section 1106.04, Subd. 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to
conditional uses within the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district is hereby amended
with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out to read as follows:
Subd. 4. Residential Dog/Cat Kennels. (Reserved.)
SECTION 3. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City
newspaper.
INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this
24th day of July, 2006.
PUBLIC HEARING, SECOND READING AND ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View this 14th day of August, 2006.
_______________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
Scott Riggs, City Attorney
Item No: 7D & 7E
Meeting Date: July 24, 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 and Consideration of an Appeal of the
Planning Commission’s Denial of a Variance for a 45-
Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 and
Consideration of an Interim Use Permit (IUP).
Introduction:
Consistent with Ordinance 769, Clear Channel Outdoor has submitted a request for an
Interim Use Permit (IUP) to site a billboard at the Mermaid property, located at 2200 County
Road at the southeast corner of the City. In addition, Clear Channel seeks City Council
approval of a variance request relating to billboard height denied them by the Planning
Commission. This report addresses both IUP and Variance issues together.
Discussion:
The City of Mounds View and Clear Channel entered into an agreement in 2005 in which
Clear Channel agreed to relocate four of its billboards from the former golf course site on
Highway 10 to make way for the Medtronic development. Clear Channel was provided two
years in which to find suitable locations elsewhere in the City to site billboard. The City’s role
was to amend its codes and regulations to allow reasonable opportunity for the signs to be
relocated in elsewhere in the community. On May 8th of this year, after multiple meetings
were held by the City Council, Ordinance 769 was adopted which expanded the locations for
billboards to properly zoned parcels (B2, B3, I1, PUD and CRP) along Highway 10, Interstate
35W, Old Highway 8 and the south side of County Road 10 south of the Woodale Drive
intersection. In addition to identifying locations, the ordinance also amended the spacing
and height requirements for billboards. The 250 foot setback from residential land uses
remained unchanged. The relocated billboards and the two billboards remaining at the
former golf course site were provided 30 year lease rights.
The following table identifies the various code requirements pertaining to billboards and
whether the requirements are satisfied with this request.
Requirement Criteria Proposed Satisfied?
Minimum Spacing 1,500 Feet + 1,500 Feet Yes
Maximum Height 35 Feet 45 Feet No *
Residential Setback 250 Feet + 1,000 Feet Yes
Property Line
Setback
15 Feet 15 Feet Yes
Maximum Sign Area 700 Sq. Feet 700 Sq. Feet Yes
Appropriate Location US 10, 35W, Old Hwy 8 or CR10 CR 10 Yes
Appropriate Zoning B2, B3, I1, PUD, CRP PUD Yes
* The Planning Commission denied the variance request. Clear Channel appealed the decision
to the City Council for reconsideration.
Clear Channel IUP & Variance Report
July 24, 2006
Page 2
Interim Use Permit Approval Process
The City Code indicates that an IUP be processed in a fashion identical to that of a
conditional use permit. Section 1125.01 articulates the process for approving a conditional
use permit (CUP) which is initiated by the Planning Commission’s review of the possible and
potential for adverse effects of the proposed interim use. After reviewing the possible
adverse impacts of the interim use, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to
the City Council which holds a public hearing to consider the request. The Planning
Commission has recommended denial of the IUP based upon potential for visibility conflicts
and obstruction to off-site buildings.
Adverse Effects Criteria
(1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan does not address or contemplate the issue of billboards. The
Planning Commission contends that billboards are not addressed or contemplated
intentionally and reflect a desire to minimize billboards in the City.
(2) The geographical area involved.
The Mermaid property is located at the southwest corner of the City at the intersection of
County Road 10 and County Road H. County Road 10 is considered the City’s primary
commercial corridor and in this general area, commercial and office land uses dominate the
landscape. The closest residential property is located more than 1,000 feet north on County
Road 10 and the billboard would not be readily visible from any residential property. The
billboard would be located at the north corner of the nine-acre Mermaid property with the
nearest affected property being the Abbey Carpet building.
(3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
While staff does not believe that the placement and installation of the billboard on the
Mermaid property would have a negative or depreciatory effect upon the subject property or
adjoining properties, the Planning Commission believes otherwise. Their resolution,
attached for the Council’s reference, does cite depreciation as a factor in their
recommendation of denial. It can also be argued in a more comprehensive sense that the
placement of the billboard on County Road 10 would depreciate the ongoing efforts of the
City to improve the appearance and aesthetics of the corridor and would be contrary to the
goals of the County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program. A resident expressed this very
sentiment at the Planning Commission’s July 5th meeting.
(4) The character of the surrounding area.
The area south of Woodale Drive and north of County Road H is strictly developed as
Commercial or office type usage. The Abbey Carpet building is newer than other buildings in
this location however the area as a whole is well maintained.
Clear Channel IUP & Variance Report
July 24, 2006
Page 3
(5) The demonstrated need for such use.
Based on the requirement that Clear Channel has had to remove and relocate four billboards
from the former golf course property, it can be stated that the proposed location is one of
only a few locations designated at which Clear Channel is able to site a billboard. While
perhaps true, the Planning Commission expressed concern that there was a more
appropriate location for a billboard on County Road 10 that would be less intrusive causing
less obstruction and impact to the subject and adjoining properties.
General Conditional Use Permit Criteria:
In addition to the adverse effects criteria considered above, the City Council is to also
evaluate the General Conditional Use Permit criteria found in Section 1125.01 Subd. 3 as
part of the consideration:
(1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and
other public facilities and utilities that serve or are proposed to serve the area.
The Installation of a billboard will not create or cause a burden to public facilities.
(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.
It is believed that the billboard would not be visible from any residentially zoned property in
the City and that the installation of the billboard would not have a detrimental effect on the
development of vacant land in the area.
(3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect
upon adjacent residential properties.
There are no residential properties adjacent to the Mermaid and as such this requirement does
not necessarily apply.
(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.
It is assumed that the need for the proposed billboards is reasonably related to the
requirement to relocate four billboards from the former golf course property.
(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.
With the adoption of Ordinance 769, the proposed billboard is consistent with the purposes of
the City Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which they are to be located.
Clear Channel IUP & Variance Report
July 24, 2006
Page 4
(6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate or address the issue of billboards. As such,
staff would suggest that the IUP request is not inconsistent with the Comp Plan.
(7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
It is not anticipated that a billboard at the Mermaid site would not cause traffic hazards or
congestion.
(8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.
Access to the billboards will be gained via the Mermaid’s parking lot.
Variance Appeal Consideration
For a variance request or appeal to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a
hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation
of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. The Mounds View Planning Commission
determined that, in their opinion, no hardship was evident to justify a variance. (The
Commission’s resolution of denial is attached for the Council’s reference.) The Code states
that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows:
(1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective
date hereof have had no control.
Clear Channel is requesting a variance from the 35 foot height requirement to permit the
billboard be constructed at a height of 45 feet. The basis for their request is to avoid
visibility conflicts with the Mermaid’s ground sign and the Abbey Carpet building signage.
In the eyes of the outdoor advertising industry, visibility is everything and the lack thereof
presents a hardship.
(2) The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title.
The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would not, in and of itself, deprive
the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. The ordinance was
adopted after specific discussion concerning this very issue, in that the City Council
expressed a desire to limit the height of billboards on County Road 10, differentiating it
from those on US 10, 35W and Old Highway 8.
Clear Channel IUP & Variance Report
July 24, 2006
Page 5
(3) That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant only
desires to preserve visibility to the existing ground and building signage while at the same
time eliminate any visibility conflicts with the billboard.
(4) That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
By virtue of the applicant’s leases at the former golf course site and the agreement with
the City to relocate four of these billboards elsewhere in the City, the applicant would
assert that the situation is already quite unique and thus a variance would not confer
upon them any special privilege denied to others.
(5) That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
According to the applicant, the ten-foot height increase to 45 feet is the minimum variance
to ensure the billboard faces will not obscure adjoining properties and adjoining ground
signs and be clearly visible from County Road 10. The applicant suggests that the
additional height will not be easily perceptible yet would ensure visibility for their sign as
well as adjacent signage. To demonstrate this, the applicant has provided a computer-
generated rendering of both a 35 foot tall sign and a 45 foot tall sign on the Mermaid
property.
(6) The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
The City Council explicitly established the maximum height for a billboard on County
Road 10 to be 35 feet in recognition of the fact that the roadway is a community corridor
as opposed to a regional corridor. The applicant will argue that NOT granting the
variance would cause a detriment to both the host property as well as the adjoining
property owned by Mr. John Kopas.
(7) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood.
The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects.
Based on the review of the hardship criteria, it is not readily apparent to staff that a hardship
exists, despite the fact that the lack of visibility from the perspective of the outdoor
advertising industry and any potential outdoor advertiser is clearly considered a hardship.
The Planning Commission denied the request citing lack of hardship.
Clear Channel IUP & Variance Report
July 24, 2006
Page 6
On the other hand, Clear Channel has clearly not caused the situation which necessitates
the additional ten feet; they were asked to vacate their prime locations at the former golf
course to make way for a new development and were provided limited opportunities within
the City in which to relocate. The City Council needs to make a good faith effort to assist in
the relocation yet a balance must be struck between what is considered a good faith effort
and what is considered “overly accommodating”.
Public Notice:
Staff sent notices to property owners within 350 feet of the Mermaid property and published
a copy of the notice in the June 28, 2006 edition of the Bulletin relating to the IUP request
and published a second notice in the July 12, 2006 edition of the Bulletin relating to the
variance appeal. Three residents (addressed on Sherwood Road, Eastwood Road and
Sunnyside Road, all north of County Road 10) had previously contacted staff to express their
opposition to the granting of a variance for additional height, a request the Planning
Commission did ultimately deny. Mr. John Kopas, owner of the adjacent Abbey Carpet
building, appeared before the Planning Commission on June 21 to express concern as to the
location of the proposed billboard and the potential for the sign to obstruct his property. Mr.
Kopas later submitted a letter in which he consented to the siting of the billboard at the
proposed location as long as the height of the billboard were at 45 feet.
Mr. Ken Glidden, Edgewood Drive, spoke in opposition to the IUP and variance request on
July 5 before the Planning Commission and again on July 10 before the City Council. Mr.
Glidden urged both bodies to not lose sight of the fact that a billboard on County Road 10
would impact everyone that travels the roadway, not just the adjoining property owners. He
felt the siting of a billboard in the corridor was contrary to the overall corridor redevelopment
efforts being undertaken by the City
Staff also received a comment by e-mail in which a resident expressed opposition to the
siting of the billboard at the Mermaid location and the requested variance. The writer’s
comments are as follows:
“Now for the [billboard] at the Mermaid, If we have to have this one I feel 35 feet of
''ugly'' is enough. It sounds like the Mermaid--Mr. Hall--will try for a ''hardship'' variance
to get this thing up to 45 feet (because the billboard at 35 feet will block the line of sight
to his own sign.) To this we should say---“TOO BAD.” Remember, he is the one
getting the revenue for 30 years. If you don't want to block your sign----DONT PUT UP
THE BILLBOARD!!!!”
Summary:
The requested Interim Use Permit appears to satisfy all Code requirements and would not
appear to cause any appreciable adverse impacts to the area in which the billboard would be
located. While some argue that any billboard on County Road 10 is contrary to the City’s
goal of improving and enhancing the image and appeal of the corridor, this site has been
identified by the City Council as a potential location for a billboard.
Clear Channel IUP & Variance Report
July 24, 2006
Page 6
Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff had drafted a resolution
to deny the requested Interim Use Permit at 2200 County Road 10 for the reasons identified
by the Planning Commission—that the billboard would adversely impact visibility in the area
and would become an obstruction to the adjacent property. The Council discussed the IUP
at their meeting on July 10 and asked that the matter be brought back for consideration on
July 24th to deal with the IUP and variance appeal at the same time.
The Mermaid has determined that a billboard at the proposed location would not be or cause
an obstruction so long as the height of the proposed billboard is allowed at 45 feet. Mr.
Kopas of Abbey Carpet also believes the billboard would not be an obstruction if erected at a
45 foot height. Unfortunately, the maximum permitted height for a billboard at this location,
as determined by the City Council, is 35 feet. As such, Clear Channel has requested the
variance to exceed the maximum height by another ten feet to 45 feet. The Planning
Commission denied the variance request and Clear Channel has appealed this denial to the
City Council. The City Council will need to make a determination whether it believes
sufficient hardship exists to warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s denial, all things
considered.
Recommendation:
Hold the public hearing and consider testimony from staff, the applicant, the property owner,
residents or any other affected person or interested party. Afterwards, the Council may
determine that one of the following three options are appropriate:
Option 1. Approve the IUP and the Variance as requested. A version of Resolution 6875 is
available for the Council’s action which would approve both actions.
Option 2. Approve the IUP, deny the Variance. A version of Resolution 6875 has been
prepared to approve just the IUP. The denial of the variance would need to be adopted
separately. The resolution to deny the variance is also attached however will only be
assigned a “number” if the Council chooses this option.
Option 3. Deny both the IUP and the Variance. A version of Resolution 6875 is available for
the Council’s consideration if that is the chosen course of action.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Survey Snapshot
4. Proposed Billboard Design
5. Computer-generated height comparisons
6. Letter from John Kopas, 2214 County Road 10
7. Letter from Gary French, 8310 Sunnyside Road
8. Planning Commission Resolution 844-06 Denying Variance
9. City Council Resolution 6875 (all versions)
Zoning Map
The
Mermaid
Co
Rd
10
●
Proposed
Billboard
Location
Proposed Billboard Design
Height Renderings
Billboard Height at 35 Feet
Billboard Height at 45 Feet
Survey Snapshot
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 844-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 45-FOOT TALL
BILLBOARD AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10, PLANNING CASE VR2006-004
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of a variance to exceed
the maximum sign height by ten feet for a billboard to be located at 2200 County Road 10,
the site of the Mermaid Entertainment Center and AmericInn Hotel; and,
WHEREAS, the Mermaid site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is
legally described as follows:
WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended
the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to the south
side of County Road 10 south of its intersection with Woodale Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public
hearing on June 21, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code establishes the review criteria
against which all variance applications shall be judged and satisfied for a variance to be
granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor
application for a variance to exceed by ten feet the maximum established height provision
for a billboard on County Road 10:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not apply to this property which
would warrant approval of the requested variance. There are other potential
locations within the County Road 10 corridor at which a billboard could potentially be
sited without obstruction from or obstruction to existing buildings or signs.
2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would not deprive the
Applicant the ability to site a billboard within the County Road 10 corridor.
3. Granting the variance would confer upon the Applicant a special privilege that
would not be extended to other property owners on the County Road 10 corridor.
4. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the corridor in that the City desires lower height signs within the County
Road 10 corridor.
Resolution 844-06
Page 2
5 The proposed variance and resulting 45-foot tall billboard could substantially
diminish or impair property values within the corridor and negatively impact the
community’s vision for the corridor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above finding
of fact, testimony provided at the public hearing and in consideration of the staff report, the
Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby deny the requested variance for a 45-
foot tall billboard (ten feet in excess of the maximum allowed height of 35 feet) at 2200
County Road 10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the applicant shall be
informed in writing as to the decision of the Planning Commission and the Applicant’s right
to appeal said decision to the City Council. The Applicant shall have ten business days
from the date of this action by which to submit its written request to appeal the decision to
the City Council.
Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006.
__________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST
__________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 845-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) FOR
A BILLBOARD AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10, PLANNING CASE IU2006-001
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of an Interim Use
Permit to locate a billboard at 2200 County Road 10, the site of the Mermaid Entertainment
Center and AmericInn Hotel; and,
WHEREAS, the Mermaid site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is
legally described as follows:
MERMAID HOTEL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY PLAT
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended
the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to the south
side of County Road 10 south of its intersection with Woodale Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a survey depicting the location and setback
of the proposed billboard; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public
hearing on June 21, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code requires that any billboard Interim Use
Permit (IUP) application be reviewed and considered in accordance with Section 1125.01,
Subdivision 3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor
application for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a billboard at 2200 County Road 10:
1. The billboard at the proposed location would detrimentally affect the adjoining
property due to obstruction from the column and potentially from the sign faces.
2. The billboard could potentially be located elsewhere on County Road 10 causing
less impact and obstruction to the subject and adjacent properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon the above findings of fact and potential adverse effects of the
proposed billboard, testimony from the public hearing and the staff report, does hereby
recommend denial of the requested Interim Use Permit.
Resolution 845-06
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to the approval of the
minutes.
Adopted this 5th day of July, 2006.
__________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST
__________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 6875
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) AND VARIANCE
FOR A 45 FOOT TALL BILLBOARD AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10;
PLANNING CASES IU2006-001 & VR2006-004
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of an Interim Use
Permit (IUP) to locate a billboard at 2200 County Road 10, the site of the Mermaid
Entertainment Center and AmericInn Hotel; and,
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of a Variance to erect
said billboard located at 2200 County Road 10 at 45 feet, ten feet in excess of what is
permitted by City Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Mermaid site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is
legally described as follows:
MERMAID HOTEL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY PLAT
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended
the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to the south
side of County Road 10 south of its intersection with Woodale Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a survey depicting the location and setback
of the proposed billboard; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council held duly-noticed public hearings on
July10, 2006 and on July 24, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code requires that any billboard Interim Use
Permit (IUP) application be reviewed and considered in accordance with Section 1125.01,
Subdivision 3; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code requires that any Variance be reviewed
and considered in accordance with Section 1125.02; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes
the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for an
Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a billboard at 2200 County Road 10:
1. The property located at 2200 County Road 10 is zoned PUD, an appropriate
designation for a billboard.
Option A
Approve
IUP and
Variance
Resolution 6875
Option A
Page 2
2. Ordinance 769 identified the subject parcel where a billboard could be located.
3. The proposed billboard would not cause any adverse impacts to the subject
property or any adjacent properties.
4. The proposed billboard would not be visible from or cause adverse impacts to
residential properties in the area.
5. The proposed billboard would not cause a burden to City services and would not
cause congestion or result in additional generated traffic.
6. The proposed billboard is not inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes
the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for a
Variance for a 45-foot tall billboard at 2200 County Road 10:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which result
from circumstances over which the Applicant has had no control, in that the
maximum height was recently established by the Mounds View City Council
without the benefit of a sight-line analysis or computer generated billboard
rendering. The additional ten feet from 35 feet to 45 feet will provide the
necessary clearance above existing signs and buildings.
2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the Applicant
of unobstructed visibility to its proposed billboard and would obscure to some
extent existing ground and building signs.
3. The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
Applicant which is attempting to relocate a billboard consistent with the terms of
the approved relocation agreement.
4. Granting the variance would not confer on the Applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district, in that the Applicant is uniquely affected by Ordinance 769 and the
Relocation Agreement.
5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship which has been graphically illustrated by the Applicant.
6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to
other property in the same zone.
7. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or
increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish
or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Resolution 6875
Option A
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council,
based upon the above findings of fact, does hereby APPROVE the requested Interim Use
Permit (IUP) for a billboard at 2200 County Road 10 in accordance with the property survey
and rendering attached as Exhibits A and B respectively, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Applicant shall have completed the construction of the billboard by July 4,
2007 or the Interim Use Permit shall be considered null and void, unless a petition
for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Planning
Commission. 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
variance or appeal.
2. As shown on the survey, the billboard support column will be sited in the parking
lot. No more than one parking stall shall be impacted as a result of the construction.
The parking lot shall be restored and repaired as soon as practical with concrete
curb and gutter installed around the billboard island and sod planted within the
billboard island.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council,
based upon the above findings of fact, does hereby APPROVE the requested Variance for a
45-foot tall billboard at 2200 County Road 10.
Adopted this 24th day of July, 2006.
__________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST
__________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Exhibit A – Survey Snapshot
Exhibit B – Approved Design
RESOLUTION NO. 6875
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) REQUEST FOR A
BILLBOARD AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10, PLANNING CASE IU2006-001
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of an Interim Use
Permit to locate a billboard at 2200 County Road 10, the site of the Mermaid
Entertainment Center and AmericInn Hotel; and,
WHEREAS, the Mermaid site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is
legally described as follows:
MERMAID HOTEL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY PLAT
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended
the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to the south
side of County Road 10 south of its intersection with Woodale Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a survey depicting the location and setback
of the proposed billboard; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on
July 10, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code requires that requires that any billboard
Interim Use Permit (IUP) application be reviewed and considered in accordance with
Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes
the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for an
Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a billboard at 2200 County Road 10:
1. The Installation of a billboard at 2200 County Road 10 would not create an
excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and
utilities that serve or are proposed to serve the area.
2. The billboard at the proposed location would not be readily visible from nearby
residentially zoned properties and would not have a detrimental effect on the
development of vacant land in the area.
3. The structure and site will not have an appearance that would adversely effect
adjacent residential properties in that there are no residential properties adjacent to
the Mermaid.
Option B
Approve
IUP ONLY
Resolution 6875
Option B
Page 2
4. The requested IUP is reasonably related to the requirement placed upon the
Applicant to relocate four of six billboards from the former golf course property.
5. The use is consistent with the recently adopted amendments to the Sign Code
Chapter 1008 as effectuated by Ordinance 769.
6. The proposed billboard would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of
the City in that the Comprehensive Plan does not address billboards.
7. The proposed billboard would not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
8. Adequate utilities, access, drainage and other necessary facilities are available to
the proposed billboard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon its review of the
Comprehensive Plan, the geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of
the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use, the City Council has
determined that the potential adverse effects of the proposed billboard would be negligible,
and as such, APPROVES the requested Interim Use Permit for a 35 foot tall billboard at
2200 County Road 10 consistent with the Zoning Code and Ordinance 769, in accordance
with the property survey and rendering attached as Exhibits A and B respectively, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall have completed the construction of the billboard by July 4,
2007 or the Interim Use Permit shall be considered null and void, unless a petition
for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Planning
Commission. 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
variance or appeal.
2. As shown on the survey, the billboard support column will be sited in the parking
lot. No more than one parking stall shall be impacted as a result of the construction.
The parking lot shall be restored and repaired as soon as practical with concrete
curb and gutter installed around the billboard island and sod planted within the
billboard island.
Adopted this 24th day of July, 2006.
__________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST
__________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk Administrator
(SEAL)
Exhibit A – Survey Snapshot
Exhibit B – Approved Design
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A 45-FOOT TALL BILLBOARD AT
2200 COUNTY ROAD 10, PLANNING CASE VR2006-004
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of a variance to exceed
the maximum sign height by ten feet for a billboard to be located at 2200 County Road 10,
the site of the Mermaid Entertainment Center and AmericInn Hotel; and,
WHEREAS, the Mermaid site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is
legally described as follows:
WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which amended
the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to the south
side of County Road 10 south of its intersection with Woodale Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on
July 24, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code establishes the review criteria
against which all variance applications shall be judged and satisfied for a variance to be
granted; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public
hearing, denied the requested variance due to the lack of demonstrated hardship
associated with the request; and,
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has appealed the Planning Commission’s
denial of the requested variance to the City Council for reconsideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes
the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for a
variance to exceed by ten feet the maximum established height provision for a billboard on
County Road 10:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not apply to this property which
would warrant approval of the requested variance. There are other potential
locations within the County Road 10 corridor at which a billboard could
potentially be sited without the need for a height variance.
2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive
the Applicant the ability to site a billboard within the County Road 10 corridor.
Option B
Variance
Denial
Resolution XXXX
Option B
Page 2
3. Granting the variance would confer upon the Applicant a special privilege that
would not be extended to other property owners on the County Road 10 corridor.
4. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the corridor in that the City desires lower height signs within the County
Road 10 corridor.
5. The proposed variance and resulting 45-foot tall billboard could substantially
diminish or impair property values within the corridor and negatively impact the
community’s vision for the corridor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above finding
of fact and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Mounds View City Council upholds
and affirms the Planning Commission’s denial of the requested variance for a 45-foot tall
billboard at 2200 County Road 10.
Adopted this 24th day of July, 2006.
__________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST
__________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk Administrator
(SEAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 6875
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) AND VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR A 45 FOOT TALL BILLBOARD AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10,
PLANNING CASES IU2006-001 and VR2006-004
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested approval of an Interim Use
Permit (IUP) to locate a billboard at 2200 County Road 10, the site of the Mermaid
Entertainment Center and AmericInn Hotel; and,
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has requested a variance for said billboard to
be erected at a height of 45 feet at the subject location, ten feet in excess of the maximum
height allowed by City Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Mermaid site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is
legally described as follows:
MERMAID HOTEL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER
COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY PLAT
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted Ordinance 769 which
amended the City Code to permit billboards as an interim use on properties adjacent to
the south side of County Road 10 south of its intersection with Woodale Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a survey depicting the location and setback
of the proposed billboard; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council held duly-noticed public hearings on
July10, 2006 and July 24, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code requires that any billboard Interim Use
Permit (IUP) application be reviewed and considered in accordance with Section 1125.01,
Subdivision 3; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Code requires that any Variance request be
reviewed and considered in accordance with Section 1125.02; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has recommended denial of
the requested IUP based on obstruction issues and adverse impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has denied the variance
request due to the lack of demonstrated hardship associated with the request; and,
Option C
IUP and
Variance
Denial
Resolution 6875
Option C
Page 2
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor has appealed the Planning Commission’s
denial of the requested variance to the City Council for reconsideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council makes
the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor application for a
variance to exceed by ten feet the maximum established height provision for a billboard on
County Road 10:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not apply to this property which
would warrant approval of the requested variance. There are other potential
locations within the County Road 10 corridor at which a billboard could
potentially be sited without the need for a height variance.
2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive
the Applicant the ability to site a billboard within the County Road 10 corridor.
3. Granting the variance would confer upon the Applicant a special privilege that
would not be extended to other property owners on the County Road 10 corridor.
4. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to
other property in the corridor in that the City desires lower height signs within the
County Road 10 corridor.
5. The proposed variance and resulting 45-foot tall billboard could substantially
diminish or impair property values within the corridor and negatively impact the
community’s vision for the corridor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above finding
of fact and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Mounds View City Council
UPHOLDS AND AFFIRMS THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL of the requested
variance for a 45-foot tall billboard at 2200 County Road 10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council makes the following findings of fact relating to the Clear Channel Outdoor
application for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a billboard at 2200 County Road 10:
1. The billboard at the proposed location would detrimentally affect the adjoining
property due to obstruction from the column and sign faces.
2. The billboard could potentially be located elsewhere on County Road 10 causing
less impact and obstruction to the subject and adjacent properties.
Resolution 6875
Option C
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council,
based upon the above findings of fact and potential adverse effects of the proposed
billboard, testimony from the public hearing and the staff report and recommendation of the
Planning Commission, does hereby DENY the requested Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a
billboard at 2200 County Road 10.
Adopted this 24th day of July, 2006.
__________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST
__________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 7F
Meeting Date: July 24, 2006
Type of Business: Public Hearing
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for
a proposed Major Subdivision at 8360 Long Lake Road;
Planning Case MA2006-002
Introduction:
Matthew Hofmann has submitted an application for a major subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road.
This parcel is towards the northern end of Long Lake Road, across from Ardan Park. The
proposed 1.55 acre subdivision would create 3 buildable lots from the existing one lot. Matthew
Hofmann currently has a purchase agreement with the landowner. Even though 8360 Long Lake
Road is less than two acres in size, this is a major subdivision due to the fact that more than one
additional lot is being created
Discussion:
The area identified as 8360 Long Lake Road is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential.
The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. All of the
lots shown on the preliminary plat satisfy the minimum requirements of 75 feet lot width and
11,000 square foot lot area. All three lots will be almost identical in size; approximately 22,520
square feet (83’ x 270’ or approximately 0.51 acre). There is currently a house on the lot, which
will be demolished, and three new single family homes would be built.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates 8360 Long
Lake Road and the surrounding area as single family detached housing. The proposed
subdivision would be consistent with that designation and consistent with the residential goals
and policies as articulated in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal
would also be consistent with specific housing goals and policies articulated in the Comp Plan.
Local Water Management Plan: Also known as the City’s Surface Water Management Plan,
this planning document guides the City in regards to drainage and stormwater management.
The project is located in the Judicial Ditch No. 1 minor watershed, AA-1 and AA-5 sub-
watersheds. The boundary between these two sub-watersheds appears to run approximately
through the middle of this lot. The minimum recommended building elevation for the AA-1 sub-
watershed is set at 905.4 feet and AA-5 is 904.0 feet.
Easements: The City’s Subdivision Code requires that plats dedicate perimeter drainage and
utility easements for each lot in the subdivision. This plat does dedicate the necessary perimeter
easements. There is a 45 foot drainage and utility easement along the west property line that
would remain. There are no wetlands associated with this property.
Streets: The three new lots will have access onto Long Lake Road, which is a county owned
road. This street is adequate to handle the small amount of added traffic that two additional
homes would create. Any work to the boulevard would require a permit from the county, and any
alterations to the existing sidewalk would require a permit from the city.
Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is
subject to a park dedication fee. The dedication imposed is intended to mitigate public costs to
the parks system associated with land development. The fee shall be reasonable and based on
the extent of the development. In this case, the fee should be equal to 10% of the market value
of the land. To establish the market value, staff uses Ramsey County assessed values as the
basis for dedication computation. Since there is already one existing house on the property, the
park dedication fee will be based on 2/3 of the land value. The 2006 Ramsey County total land
value is $159,600 (2/3 = $106,400). The dedication amount then would be $10,640. This
amount has been communicated to the developer.
Utilities: All utilities on the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10.
Water and sanitary sewer lines are accessible.
Traffic: The amount of daily vehicle trips on the proposed road will be minimal since only two
additional housing units are proposed. There is currently one house on the property. On
average, single-family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day, thus one could expect an
additional 20 movements along Long Lake Road or as a result of this subdivision.
Vegetation: The majority of the 1.55 acre site is tree covered. The City Forester has visited the
site and determined that there are four or five large Red Oak trees near the current house that
would be worth making an effort to save. The applicant has indicated that having the lots
wooded will be a great selling point for the homes. Staff recommends that upon each new
homes completion, the yard areas shall be sodded and a minimum of two trees shall be in the
front yard – whether they are existing trees or new ones planted if the existing trees must be
removed. The new tree species shall be from a list provided by the City Forester.
Wetlands: The National Wetlands Inventory Map and the City’s official Wetland Zoning Map
do not identify a wetland within the property boundary. Since the property is over one acre in
size, the applicant will need to apply for a general stormwater permit from the MPCA, and
contact Rice Creek Watershed District to find out if they will require a permit also.
Public Input: Staff received a phone call on July 5, 2006 from one of the property owners on
Greenwood Drive, directly behind this lot. They were concerned about keeping the wooded
buffer between the homes.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously 5-0 (Zwirn & Meehlhause absent) on July 5,
2006 to recommend approval of this preliminary plat.
Recommendation:
Hold the public hearing, review the plans and discuss the proposed preliminary plat. Staff
review and a brief review by the county surveyor revealed no deficiencies at this time and thus
Resolution 6888 recommending approval of the preliminary plat has been drafted for your
action if the Council so desires.
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
8360 Long Lake Road Subdivision
Staff Report - Page 2
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Zoning Map
4. Aerial View
5. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map
6. Photographic Documentation
7. Planning Commission Resolution 843-06
8. Resolution 6888
Zoning Map
Aerial View
Ardan Park
Proposed 3 lots
Photographic Documentation
View of house currently on property –
house is placed approximately in the
middle of the 250 foot wide lot
View of south half of
8360 Long Lake Road
Current house
View of north half of
8360 Long Lake Road
Current house
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 843-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 8360 LONG LAKE ROAD;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2006-002
WHEREAS, Matthew Hofmann has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the
major subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road, legally-described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Charles Hermann Addition
WHEREAS, The above-described land is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and
are designated as Single-Family Detached on the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, Matthew Hofmann has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the major
subdivision which creates 3 buildable lots; and,
WHEREAS, the community development, public works staff, and city attorney have all
reviewed the preliminary plat and finds that it satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements
as articulated in Titles 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code and complies with
county platting requirements; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to
a park dedication fee which would be equivalent to 10% of the assessed value of the project
land area, which been determined to be $10,640.00; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is not within a designated wetland area; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Staff Report
2. Planning Application
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Zoning Map
5. Aerial View
6. Site Plan
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the preliminary Plat submitted by Matthew Hofmann subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall arrange to have an acceptable title commitment provided to the
City Attorney for review prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council.
2. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in an amount to be determined by the
Mounds View City Council.
3. The applicant shall take all steps to save any trees possible during the construction
and shall make arrangements to have a minimum of two trees in each front yard
upon project completion and sod all yard areas.
4. The applicant shall obtain permits, if required, from Rice Creek Watershed District
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction activity
commences.
5. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be
located underground.
6. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than 6 months after the
date of approval of the preliminary plat, or the Preliminary Plat approval will
become null and void.
BE IT FURTHER 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 5th day of July, 2006.
__________________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Resolution 843-06
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 6888
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 8360 LONG LAKE ROAD;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2006-002
WHEREAS, Matthew Hofmann, has applied for a major subdivision for a single family
residential subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road; and,
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat date-stamped June 15, 2006 proposes a three lot
subdivision, with all lots fronting Long Lake Road; and,
WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Charles Hermann Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the adopted
Comprehensive Plan designates the parcel for low-density residential development; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary plat satisfies the minimum subdivision
requirements as identified in Chapter 1010 and Titles 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
1. Staff Report
2. Planning Application
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Zoning Map
5. Aerial View
6. Photographic Documentation
7. Planning Commission Resolution 843-06
WHEREAS, In accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, all subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication fee requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this
preliminary plat on Monday, July 24, 2006.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission supported the request by adopting Resolution
843-06, which recommends approval of the major subdivision; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves
the preliminary plat for the major subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall arrange to have an acceptable title commitment provided to the
City Attorney for review prior to the final plat approval by the City Council.
2. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $10,640.00.
3. The applicant shall take all steps to save any significant trees possible during the
construction and shall make arrangements to have a minimum of two trees located in
each front yard upon project completion and sod all yard areas.
4. The applicant shall obtain permits, if required, from Rice Creek Watershed District and
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction activity commences.
5. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be
located underground.
6. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than 6 months after the date
of approval of the preliminary plat, or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null
and void.
Adopted this 24th day of July, 2006
_____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Charter Commission
Chair
Jonathan J Thomas
763-784-5205
Vice Chair
Bill Doty
763-786-3421
2nd Vice Chair
Jean Miller
763-786-3959
Secretary
Brian Amundsen
763-786-5699
Matthew Eenigenburg
763-783-7216
Carol Mueller
763.780.1251
Barbara Thomas
763-780-6226
William Werner Sr
763-784-3603
Resolution No. 2006-06a
Mounds View Charter Commission
Dated July 20, 2006
The Mounds View Charter Commission in accordance with Minnesota Statute
410.12 Subdivision 1, recommends the following amendments by the addition
of the bold and double underlined language and by deletion of the bold and stricken
language. The Mounds View Charter Commission requests the City Council
prepare the following Charter language amendment for a ballot in accordance
with Minnesota Statute 410.12 Subdivision 4 and have it placed before the
voters at the next general election. We also request the City Council response
within 20 days for any questions or clarification to any item as presented in the
modification of language for Chapter 7, Section 7.03 of the Mounds View
Charter.
This resolution supersedes the previously submitted Resolution 2006-06
This amendment, if approved by a majority of the voters shall become effective
on March 1, 2007.
Objectives:
1)To update and correct language in 7.03 for system of taxation.
2)In 7.03 to limit annual tax levy and certain fee increases, but provide a
process to obtain voter referendum approval for needs beyond the limits.
The section recommended for consideration with this resolution is attached.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________________________
Jonathan J Thomas, Chair Brian R Amundsen, Secretary
Mounds View Charter Commission Resolution 2006-06a
Date: July 20, 2006
CHAPTER 7
TAXATION AND FINANCES
. . .
Section 7.03. System of Taxation. Subject to the state constitution, and except as forbidden by
it or by state law, the Council shall have full power to provide by ordinance for a system of local
taxation. This authority includes the power by ordinance to assess, levy, and collect taxes on all
subjects or objects of taxation except as limited or prohibited by the state constitution, by this Charter or
by state laws imposing restrictions upon the City irrespective of Charter provisions.
Subdivision 1. The City's annual resolution to levy ad valorem taxes (raising money against
real and personal property) shall not exceed the lesser of the following formulas; either the prior year
tax levy dollar amount increased by a maximum of 5%, or CPI (Consumer Price Index) plus 2%.
The CPI shall be the 12 month average of the most recently published data for all Urban Consumers
in the Minneapolis, St. Paul metropolitan area, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
Subdivision 2. The City Council may levy a tax against real and personal property in excess
of the limit set in Subdivision 1 provided the Council shall:
A)Adopt a resolution declaring the necessity for an additional tax levy and specifying the
purposes for which such additional tax levy is required.
B)Hold a public hearing upon at least 10 days posted and published notice in the City's official
newspaper, City newsletter, and, if available, the City web site, setting forth the contents of
the resolution described in Subdivision 2A.
C)After such public hearing, adopt by an affirmative vote of at least four (4) members of the
Council such resolution language which is readily understandable and a summary of such
resolution will be the ballot question for the electorate at the next regular municipal election
or special election, per this Charter's Section 4.04, as amended, prior to the final levy
approval.
D)If the additional tax levy resolution is then approved by the voters under Chapter 4 of this
Charter then the levy shall be implemented in the following fiscal year or later date as
specified in the resolution.
Subdivision 3. Any other fee or levy, created, or increased beyond the limits set forth in
Subdivision 1, shall require voter approval as stipulated in Subdivision 2 of this Section.
A)For the purposes of this Section, "fee" includes utility charges (other than water, sanitary
sewer, storm water and street light), recycling fees, franchise fees (for cable, gas and
electric), Administrative offense fees, and shall also include any other fee that produces a tax
burden or direct financial obligation to a simple majority of property owners and/or residents
of Mounds View.
B)For the purposes of this Section, the term "fee" does not include: Filing for Office fee, park
or recreational participation fees, charges for photo-copying, sales of municipal liquor store
City of Mounds View
Mounds View Charter Commission Resolution 2006-06a
Date: July 20, 2006
products, Building and Zoning Permit or Inspection and Planning fees, or civil, criminal and
banking fines and other charges collected in cases of restitution or violation of law or
contract. The term “fee” does not include charges collected by the direction of the State,
County or other taxation authority, or as a result of joint powers agreements. The term "fee"
also does not include rental housing fees, liquor license fees, cable television service fees,
annual license fees for the operation of a regulated business, and any miscellaneous fees for
services, including health and safety related Code enforcement, and other goods, services or
materials routinely provided by the City to its citizens or other members of the public which,
by law, must be limited to the actual cost of the service being provided. The term "fee" shall
not include any special assessments made under Minnesota Statutes Section 429, as
amended.
C)For the purposes of this Section, "fee increase" includes a new tax or fee, a monetary
increase in an existing tax or fee, a tax or fee rate increase, an expansion in the legal
definition of a tax or fee base, and an extension of an expiring tax or fee.
D)This Section does not apply to any specific emergency measure authorized in Chapter 7
Section 7.12. or MN Statute 475.754, as amended.
Subdivision 4. The City shall not levy to increase any fund reserve beyond 50% of an average
of that fund's previous five years annual expenditures. The Council may raise a fund's reserve beyond
50% provided:
1.the Council designates by resolution and holds a public hearing reviewing the purpose of the
reserve increase and the City follows such proposed increase with the steps outlined in
Subdivision 2 of this Section the year prior to the collection of such increased taxation or fee,
or
2.the Council modifies and adopts by resolution the Five Year Financial Plan, as defined in
Chapter 7, Section 7.05, as amended, specifying the fund reserve purpose and the City follows
such proposed increase with the steps outlined in Subdivision 2 of this Section the year prior to
the collection of such increased taxation or fee.
Moneys raised by Tax Increment Financing shall not be included in the calculation of reserve limit.
This Subdivision and Section shall not limit or impair the City's ability to create Tax Increment
Financing or enter into Development Agreements specified by MN Statutes 469.174 to 469.1799, as
amended. This Subdivision shall not require the City to divest or expend any excess of any reserve
fund(s) currently exceeding the specified limit, provided the Council, within 90 days of adopting this
Section, designates by resolution the purpose of the reserve or adopts a modified Five Year Financial
Plan reflecting the reserve purpose.
Subdivision 5. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to impair any general obligation
the City may have in support of otherwise lawful indebtedness or similar obligation supported by the
full faith and credit of the City, provided, however, that long-term, general obligation indebtedness
shall not be used for the purpose of funding the routine and daily business operations of the City.
. . .
City of Mounds View
Item No: 07G
Meeting Date: July 24, 2006
Type of Business: CB
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: Resolution 6884 Adopting the Recommendations of
the Charter Commission for a Charter Language
Amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City
Charter and Authorizing Staff to Prepare Language to
Chapter 7 for the Next General Election.
Background:
During the past several years, the Mounds View Charter Commission has been reviewing
the lists of past requests for housekeeping and clarification updates to sections of the
Mounds View Charter that have caused confusion or seem to be semantically incorrect. A
number of these changes have been processed by ordinance by the City Council.
However, if changes are deemed to be more substantive in nature, the Charter
Commission may recommend that these amendments be put to a ballot referendum. The
Mounds View Charter Commission has requested that the City Council prepare the
following Charter language amendment for a ballot and have it placed before the voters at
the next general election. The amendment is dealing with Section 7.03 of the Charter in
regard to the City's system of taxation. The concepts that are proposed were discussed at
thejoint Council/Charter Commission Work Session held earlier this year and reviewed by
the City Council on July 10, 2006, and referred to the City Attorney for review and
comment.
Discussion:
The City Attorney has provided his comments to the Charter Commission and will meet
with them to discuss the language amendment to Chapter 7 of the Charter on Thursday,
July 20, 2006 at 7pm. Pending the outcome of this meeting, staff will prepare and deliver
this agenda item at the City Council's home residence on Saturday, July 22, 2006.
Attached are the attorney's comments on the proposed change to the Mounds View City
Charter for your reference.
The Charter Commission has requested the City Council's response within 30 days on any
questions or clarification to any item as presented in the modification of language for
Chapter 7, Section 7.03. The Mounds View Charter Commission acting under Minnesota
Statute 410.12 Subdivision 1, has recommended the attached amendments by the addition
of the bold and double underlined language and by deletion of the language.
In summary, the objectives for the proposed amendment to this section, as stated by the
Charter Commission, are twofold:
1) To update and correct language in 7.03 for system of taxation.
2) In 7.03 to limit the annual tax levy and certain fee increases, but to provide a process to
obtain voter referendum approval for needs beyond the limits.
The attached resolution directs staff to prepare a ballot question for the amendment to the
Mounds View Charter Chapter 7 Subd. 3 as presented by the Charter Commission
pursuant
MN Statute 410.12 Subd. 1
Subd. 1. Proposals. The charter commission may propose amendments to such
charter ...
and
to:
MN Statute 410.12 Subd. 4
Subd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a general or
special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The form of the ballot
shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the question on the ballot shall be
sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other
question on the ballot at the same time. if 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment
are in favor of its adoption, copies of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in
the case of the original charter and the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the
date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment.
The Attorney has indicated that while the City Council shall fix the form of the ballot
question, the Charter Commission has the authority to have the question on the ballot.
The upcoming General Election would obviously be the most cost-effective election to
address this ballot question. A special election, if it were necessary, would cost
approximately $10,000. To make the general election deadline, the question must be
certified to the County by September 15th. Consequently, staff recommends final action on
the question be taken by the Council no later than the August 28th regular meeting.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution 6884
considering an amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter as proposed
by the Mounds View Charter Commission and directing staff to prepare language to be
placed on the ballot for a vote of the qualified voters at the next general election,
pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statute 410.12.
If you would like other arrangements made for delivery, then please contact me on my
cell phone at 651-308-8371.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6884
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CONSIDERING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER
AS PROPOSED BY THE MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION AND DIRECTING STAFF
TO PREPARE LANGUAGE TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR A VOTE OF THE
QUALIFIED VOTERS AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION, PURSUANT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTE 410.12.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of
the City of Mounds View City Charter Commission, has received an amendment to Chapter 7 of the
Charter of the City of Mounds View relating to `Taxation and Finances" as proposed by the Mounds
View Charter Commission, and
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Charter Commission has requested that the City Council
prepare a Charter language amendment for a ballot and have it placed before the voters at the next
general election, and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 410.12, Subd. 1 provides that the charter commission may
propose amendments to the City Charter, and
WHEREAS, MN Statute 410.12 Subd. 4 provides as follows:
Subd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a
general or special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The
form of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the question
on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish
the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time. If 51 percent
of the votes cast on any amendment are in favor of its adoption, copies of the
amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the case of the original charter and
the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of the election or at such
other time as is fixed in the amendment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View
does hereby adopt considering an amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter as
proposed by the Mounds View Charter Commission and directing staff to prepare language to be
placed on the ballot for a vote of the qualified voters at the next general election, pursuant to the
requirements of Minnesota Statute 410.12.
Adopted this 24th day of July, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 7I
Meeting Date: July 24, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Request to Rezone Properties at
2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of
8060 Groveland Road; Planning Case ZC06-001
Introduction:
Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, is requesting City approval to rezone properties
located at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3,
Medium Density Residential, to allow for a townhome development on the site which would
involve nineteen individual owner-occupied units. The development site is presently zoned
B-3, Highway Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential. Adjoining properties are zoned
R-3, R-O and R-1. The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this
site is within a mixed use planned unit development area (MU-PUD). Such a designation is
intended to allow for some flexibility in redevelopment however with an anticipation that there
would be a component of both housing and commercial on the site and be master planned
for a comprehensive, integrated development looking beyond the project boundaries.
Background:
Integra Homes applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 2005 and the Planning
Commission reviewed the general concept plan which involved the development of 21
owner-occupied townhome units. There was some concern expressed from Commission
members and adjacent property owners that the extent of the proposed development was
too intensive and the orientation of the proposed units intrusive and out of place given the
adjacent single family residential properties. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution
796-05 in July of 2005 which recommended denial of the PUD based on excessive
development density and other adverse impacts. Rather than pursue action at the Council
level, Integra chose to re-evaluate their plan based on the feedback received. They
concluded their evaluation and resubmitted their application not as a PUD but as a simple
rezoning request involving 19 townhome units.
The Planning Commission discussed the revised application at their meetings on May 17,
June 7 and June 21 of this year. After much consideration and input from residents, the
Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending denial of the request based on
the following concerns:
• The rezoning and proposed development would adversely affect adjacent
property owners by compromising privacy and increasing area density.
• The proposed density allowed with an R-3 designation is too intense given the
surrounding single family dwellings and does not fit the character of the existing
neighborhood.
Integra Report
July 24, 2006
Page 2
• The residential rezoning is not consistent with the redevelopment expectations
for this area.
• In the opinion of the Planning Commission, no compelling basis to justify the
requested rezoning presented.
Other concerns expressed at the meeting by residents related to traffic impacts, safety,
emergency vehicle response times and accessibility, as well as how the proposed project
would disrupt the potential for a comprehensive, block-wide development. By developing
the center of the development area only and not the entire 7.6 acres designated Mixed Use
PUD, the remnant tracts on either side of the townhome project would be too small to
support a Commercial PUD (requires a minimum of five acres) and too small for
development of any reasonable significance. The proposed development is 3.0 acres,
leaving 1.6 acres to the northwest, 2.4 acres to the southeast and 0.6 acres to the north.
The Planning Commission, during the public hearings and public input, asked neighbors
what they would prefer to see constructed on the site, if not townhomes. Some residents
felt office or commercial would provide a better tax base and be less disruptive to the
neighboring residential properties while others were less opposed to the proposed use than
they were how it broke up the integrity of the PUD. The applicants addressed the question
of office or commercial, responding that they received no interest from office or commercial
developers because of the location and due to access constraints. The site, as proposed
to be developed, would be served by one access to County Road 10—a right in right out
limited access point which is undesirable from a leasing perspective. Residential, on the
other hand, is much less impacted by such limited access onto a thoroughfare such as
County Road 10.
Recognizing that there was not a consensus as to how the site *should* be developed or if
such a development can be denied simply because it degrades the integrity of the PUD,
the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the City undertake a
planning and marketing study of the site (the 7.6 acres) to ascertain the highest and best
use for the property. I will begin meeting with consultants the week of July 17 assuming
the City Council supports this concept. No contracts or agreements would be signed
without bringing something back for subsequent Council authorization.
Rezoning Criteria:
The procedure and conditions of a rezoning approval are the same as for conditional use
permits, which means the Planning Commission and Council is to consider possible and
potential adverse effects of the requested rezoning. The Planning Commission makes a
recommendation to the City Council based upon the review of potential adverse effects
and findings of fact. The adverse effects assessment as compiled by staff begins on the
next page.
Integra Report
July 24, 2006
Page 3
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the site is
designated as a mixed-use planned unit development. This is defined as land containing a
building or buildings with significant amounts of residential uses in combination with
commercial and/or office uses. Sites with this designation *should* be developed as
planned unit developments (PUDs) to ensure that efficient, integrated and well-planned
development occurs. One of the key components of the Comprehensive Plan, the Housing
Element is geared toward maintaining and improving the quality and diversity of the
existing housing stock and providing infill housing opportunities where both possible and
practical. The proposed rezoning would help promote a greater diversity of housing
choices in the community, based on the applicant’s concept townhome development
proposal. Rental housing or multi-family units would not be considered an improvement to
the City’s housing stock diversity.
Geographical Area. The subject area proposed for redevelopment currently consists of a
vacant commercial property (formerly operated as a small gas station), a single family
residential home and the subdivided back half of another single-family residential property.
(The applicants subdivided the property at 8060 Groveland Road in 2005.) Adjacent to
the northwest on County Road 10 is a residential property which already bears the R-3
designation. To the southeast is a residential office property operating as “Johnson’s
Trailer Hitches.” The properties to the rear of the subject parcels are zoned R-1, single
family residential, and are developed as such. Properties on County Road 10 tend to be
developed to a greater intensity, whether commercial or residential, than in other parts of
the community. Directly south of the project area across County Road 10 are two
townhome developments—Knollwood Green and Northridge Villas.
Depreciation. The question of depreciation is a difficult one to answer with any quantifiable
certainty. Most studies which examine property value impacts of development generally
find there to be little correlation between a project and subsequent property values. While
property values may not depreciate as a result of the development, one can argue that
quality of life for the existing residents that would be adjacent to the project could be
negatively impacted. Strictly from the perspective of tax base and market values, the
rezoning would promote a substantial increase in market value at the site, increasing from
the present approximate valuation of $460,000 to an estimated $4,750,000—a ten-fold
increase in value.
Character of the Surrounding Area. The project area is located on County Road 10, the
City’s primary commercial corridor. Within two blocks of the site, one can find a variety of
commercial and residential uses. The residential uses include single family residential,
owner-occupied townhomes and multi-family rental dwellings. In the immediate area
however, the predominating land use is single-family residential.
Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant desires to rezone the property to allow
for owner-occupied townhomes. This type of housing is under-represented in the City’s
housing demographic. The primary housing option in the City is single family detached
with higher-density rental housing and manufactured homes second and third respectively.
Owner-occupied townhomes and senior housing (independent or assisted) units are less
prevalent.
Integra Report
July 24, 2006
Page 4
The requested rezoning to R-3, Medium density residential, would not necessarily be out of
character for the County Road 10 corridor and would not necessarily be inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, which anticipated a mix of housing and commercial / office
development in this area. The proposed development that would be permitted via the
requested rezoning would increase the market values of the subject area by a factor of
ten—from $460,000 to $4,750,000. While enhanced market value is desirable, the City
needs to determine if the potential density allowed would be too intensive for the subject
area, which is primarily lower density residential. The applicant feel this type of housing is
in demand and would be a positive complement to the City’s housing stock.
Some residents have asked that the City not accept the first redevelopment proposal
presented but rather wait and see if the Vikings stadium is approved for Anoka County in
which case the combination of a stadium and proximity of Medtronic could magnify the
demand for developable land, specifically along the County Road 10 corridor. Based on
the comments provided at the meetings, it appears that the residents’ underlying concern is
that (1) the development is not what was originally intended when the area was guided as a
mixed use PUD and that (2) approval would eliminate the possibility of a comprehensive,
block-wide project. Only one resident spoke in favor of the project, a person residing
across County Road 10 in the City of Spring Lake Park.
Council Worksession
At the Council’s Worksession on July 17, 2006, the council members discussed the project
and reviewed the developer’s color rendering of the proposed building front-elevation. The
rendering was of a four unit building, with each unit displaying unique design and
character. The developer indicated a willingness to put additional design work into the
facility if it were allowed to move forward. The Council also discussed the possibility of an
alternative land use, that being senior assisted living. While the Mayor felt such a land use
would be preferable to the townhomes, he remained opposed to any development which
broke up the integrity of the overall PUD area, echoing the concerns expressed by the
Planning Commission. The other two council members in attendance believed the
townhome project had merit and directed staff to draft an ordinance to effectuate the
rezoning. Given the absence of consensus, staff has drafted a resolution to deny the
rezoning consistent with the Planning Commission’s findings and an ordinance to approve
the rezoning.
Summary
The Planning Commission, on a 6 to 1 vote, adopted a resolution which recommends
denial of the rezoning request, finding that the developer had not brought forward a
compelling redevelopment plan and that the project was not what was originally intended
for this area. The Commission further recommended to the City Council (unanimously)
that the Council authorize a study of this area to determine the highest and best land use if
the townhome project is rejected.
If the City Council believes an alternative land use would be preferable (senior assisted
living or offices, for example,) the rezoning request should be denied.
Integra Report
July 24, 2006
Page 5
Conclusion
Attached for your consideration please find Resolution 6891, a resolution denying the
rezoning request submitted by Integra Homes represented by Ron Lillestrand. Also
attached for possible action is Ordinance 778, an ordinance which provides for the
introduction and first reading of the rezoning approval. If the Ordinance is approved, a
second reading would be necessary before final adoption would occur. Rather than having
the second reading at the next Council meeting however, staff would recommend that the
applicant be directed to then move forward with the requisite major subdivision activity and
development review actions. Staff would further recommend that these actions be
commenced and considered within a six month period of time or the rezoning action would
become void. (Please note that once the ordinance has been read twice, adopted and
published, the new zoning is in place regardless of whether the applicant moves forward
with the major subdivision and townhome plan, thus the direction to refrain from giving the
ordinance a second reading until the other actions have been approved and formalized
with a development agreement.)
Respectfully submitted,
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Zoning Map
Area
designated for
Mixed Use
Planned Unit
Development
Integra
Development
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Integra
Homes
Site
Site Plan
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 835-06
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST TO R-3,
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AT 2901 AND 2925 COUNTY ROAD 10 AND THE
WEST HALF OF 8060 GROVELAND ROAD;
PLANNING CASE ZC06-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, Integra Homes, has applied for a rezoning request of the
properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to r-
3, Medium Density residential. The properties are legally described as:
Lot 8, Block 3, Sherwood Estates;
and,
Subject To Highway; The Following; Part Of Lot 32 Description Beginning On
Easterly Lot 32 100 Feet South Of Northwest Corner Lot 50 Thence South On
Said Line To Northeast Line Of Highway Thence Northwest On Highway 32
Feet Thence Northeast To Beginning Also, Except Northwesterly Triangular
Part Measured 7 Feet On Northerly & 100 Feet On Easterly Line Said Triangle;
All Of Lot 50, and the West 271.10 Feet of the South 135 Feet of Lot 47, all in
Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89.
WHEREAS, 2925 County Road 10 and 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned
R-1, Single Family Residential, and 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway
Business; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
1. Application
2. Letter from Applicant
3. Zoning Map
4. Location Map
5. Proposed Site Plan
6. Staff Report
WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the official City newspaper
on May 3, 2006, and notices mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject
properties; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; and,
Resolution 835-06
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapters 1108
and 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to the R-3 zoning district and
Rezoning process, respectively; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the land use
component of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and,
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the site plans
associated with this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this proposed
rezoning request as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code:
1. The current zoning of the lots is R-1, Single Family Residential and B-3, Highway
Business. The requested zoning of the lots is R-3, Medium Density Residential.
2. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the parcels proposed to be included in the
development are designated Mixed-Use PUD on the Future Land Use map.
3. The rezoning and associated development plan as proposed would adversely affect
adjacent property owners by compromising privacy and substantially increasing area
densities.
4. The proposed density, while not inconsistent with the Code requirements for a 3-acre
parcel, is too intense given the surrounding single family dwellings and does not fit the
character of the existing neighborhood.
5. The residential rezoning is not consistent with the redevelopment expectations of the
City for this area.
6. No compelling basis to justify the requested rezoning has been presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings,
the information and documents regarding the proposed rezoning, the report drafted by staff
and the testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of the public testimony given at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of the rezoning
request made by Integra Homes.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Resolution 835-06
Page 3
Adopted this 21st day of June, 2006.
_________________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
Attest:
_________________________________________
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(Seal)
RESOLUTION NO. 6891
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A REZONING REQUEST TO R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, AT 2901 AND 2925 COUNTY ROAD 10 AND THE WEST HALF OF
8060 GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNING CASE ZC06-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, Integra Homes, has applied for a rezoning request of the
properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road to
R-3, Medium Density residential. The properties are legally described as:
Lot 8, Block 3, Sherwood Estates;
and,
Subject To Highway; The Following; Part Of Lot 32 Description Beginning On
Easterly Lot 32 100 Feet South Of Northwest Corner Lot 50 Thence South On
Said Line To Northeast Line Of Highway Thence Northwest On Highway 32
Feet Thence Northeast To Beginning Also, Except Northwesterly Triangular
Part Measured 7 Feet On Northerly & 100 Feet On Easterly Line Said Triangle;
All Of Lot 50, and the West 271.10 Feet of the South 135 Feet of Lot 47, all in
Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89.
WHEREAS, 2925 County Road 10 and 8060 Groveland Road are currently zoned
R-1, Single Family Residential, and 2901 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway
Business; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this
proposal:
1. Application
2. Letter from Applicant
3. Zoning Map
4. Location Map
5. Proposed Site Plan
6. Proposed Building Elevation
7. Planning Commission Resolution 835-06
8. Staff Report
WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the official City newspaper on
June 14, 2006, and notices mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject
properties; and,
Resolution 6891
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing regarding this request on Monday,
June 26, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed Chapters 1108 and 1125 of the Mounds
View Zoning Code pertaining to the R-3 zoning district and Rezoning process, respectively;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the land use component of the
Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the site plans and building elevations
associated with this request; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Planning
Commission’s resolution recommending denial of the requested rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council makes the
following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this proposed rezoning request
as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code:
1. The current zoning of the lots is R-1, Single Family Residential and B-3, Highway
Business. The requested zoning of the lots is R-3, Medium Density Residential.
2. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the parcels proposed to be included in the
development are designated Mixed-Use PUD on the Future Land Use map.
3. The rezoning and associated development plan as proposed would adversely
affect adjacent property owners by compromising privacy and substantially
increasing area densities.
4. The proposed residential density is too intense given the surrounding single family
dwellings and does not fit the character of the existing neighborhood.
5. The residential rezoning for townhomes is not consistent with the redevelopment
expectations of the City for this area.
6. No compelling basis has been submitted to justify the requested rezoning.
Resolution 6891
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings,
the information and documents regarding the proposed rezoning, the report drafted by staff
and the testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of the public testimony given at the
public hearing and the Planning Commission’s recommendation of denial, the City Council
does hereby DENY the rezoning request made by Integra Homes.
Adopted this 24th day of July, 2006.
_________________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
Attest:
_________________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(Seal)
ORDINANCE 778
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF THREE ACRES OF LAND AT 2901
AND 2925 COUNTY ROAD 10 AND THE WEST HALF OF 8060 GROVELAND ROAD
TO R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled “Specific Rezonings”
is hereby amended to include reference to the following Ordinance 778.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Mounds View City Council has determined that to
further economic development and organized land use controls that the present zoning
classification of certain parcels should be reclassified to allow for a comprehensive
redevelopment of the identified parcels consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive
Plan.
Subdivision 2. The Mounds View City Council has determined that there would be no
adverse effects to adjoining properties resulting from the rezoning and that the rezoning
would not be detrimental to the community at large.
Subdivision 3. Accordingly, the Mounds View City Council approves the rezoning and
directs that the City’s official Zoning Map and the zoning classification for the following
described parcel be amended as follows:
Parcel Address
Existing
Zoning
Designation
New Zoning
Designation
2901 County Road 10 B-3 R-3
2925 County Road 10 R-1 R-3
8060 Groveland Road (west half only) R-1 R-3
and as shown on the map attached Exhibit A.
Ordinance 778
Page 2
SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication.
First read and introduced by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th
day of July, 2006.
Second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on
this ______ day of ______________, _______.
_______________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST
_______________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Scott Riggs, City Attorney
Exhibit A.
Area to be
rezoned to R-3,
Medium Density
Residential
Item No: 07G
Meeting Date: July 24, 2006
Type of Business: CB
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: Resolution 6884 Adopting the Recommendations of
the Charter Commission for a Charter Language
Amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City
Charter and Authorizing Staff to Prepare Language to
Chapter 7 for the Next General Election.
Background:
During the past several years, the Mounds View Charter Commission has been reviewing
the lists of past requests for housekeeping and clarification updates to sections of the
Mounds View Charter that have caused confusion or seem to be semantically incorrect. A
number of these changes have been processed by ordinance by the City Council.
However, if changes are deemed to be more substantive in nature, the Charter
Commission may recommend that these amendments be put to a ballot referendum. The
Mounds View Charter Commission has requested that the City Council prepare the
following Charter language amendment for a ballot and have it placed before the voters at
the next general election. The amendment is dealing with Section 7.03 of the Charter in
regard to the City's system of taxation. The concepts that are proposed were discussed at
thejoint Council/Charter Commission Work Session held earlier this year and reviewed by
the City Council on July 10, 2006, and referred to the City Attorney for review and
comment.
Discussion:
The City Attorney has provided his comments to the Charter Commission and will meet
with them to discuss the language amendment to Chapter 7 of the Charter on Thursday,
July 20, 2006 at 7pm. Pending the outcome of this meeting, staff will prepare and deliver
this agenda item at the City Council's home residence on Saturday, July 22, 2006.
Attached are the attorney's comments on the proposed change to the Mounds View City
Charter for your reference.
The Charter Commission has requested the City Council's response within 30 days on any
questions or clarification to any item as presented in the modification of language for
Chapter 7, Section 7.03. The Mounds View Charter Commission acting under Minnesota
Statute 410.12 Subdivision 1, has recommended the attached amendments by the addition
of the bold and double underlined language and by deletion of the language.
In summary, the objectives for the proposed amendment to this section, as stated by the
Charter Commission, are twofold:
1) To update and correct language in 7.03 for system of taxation.
2) In 7.03 to limit the annual tax levy and certain fee increases, but to provide a process to
obtain voter referendum approval for needs beyond the limits.
The attached resolution directs staff to prepare a ballot question for the amendment to the
Mounds View Charter Chapter 7 Subd. 3 as presented by the Charter Commission
pursuant
MN Statute 410.12 Subd. 1
Subd. 1. Proposals. The charter commission may propose amendments to such
charter ...
and
to:
MN Statute 410.12 Subd. 4
Subd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a general or
special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The form of the ballot
shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the question on the ballot shall be
sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other
question on the ballot at the same time. if 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment
are in favor of its adoption, copies of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in
the case of the original charter and the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the
date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment.
The Attorney has indicated that while the City Council shall fix the form of the ballot
question, the Charter Commission has the authority to have the question on the ballot.
The upcoming General Election would obviously be the most cost-effective election to
address this ballot question. A special election, if it were necessary, would cost
approximately $10,000. To make the general election deadline, the question must be
certified to the County by September 15th. Consequently, staff recommends final action on
the question be taken by the Council no later than the August 28th regular meeting.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution 6884
considering an amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter as proposed
by the Mounds View Charter Commission and directing staff to prepare language to be
placed on the ballot for a vote of the qualified voters at the next general election,
pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statute 410.12.
If you would like other arrangements made for delivery, then please contact me on my
cell phone at 651-308-8371.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6884
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CONSIDERING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER
AS PROPOSED BY THE MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION AND DIRECTING STAFF
TO PREPARE LANGUAGE TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR A VOTE OF THE
QUALIFIED VOTERS AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION, PURSUANT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTE 410.12.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of
the City of Mounds View City Charter Commission, has received an amendment to Chapter 7 of the
Charter of the City of Mounds View relating to `Taxation and Finances" as proposed by the Mounds
View Charter Commission, and
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Charter Commission has requested that the City Council
prepare a Charter language amendment for a ballot and have it placed before the voters at the next
general election, and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 410.12, Subd. 1 provides that the charter commission may
propose amendments to the City Charter, and
WHEREAS, MN Statute 410.12 Subd. 4 provides as follows:
Subd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a
general or special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The
form of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the question
on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish
the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time. If 51 percent
of the votes cast on any amendment are in favor of its adoption, copies of the
amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the case of the original charter and
the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of the election or at such
other time as is fixed in the amendment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View
does hereby adopt considering an amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter as
proposed by the Mounds View Charter Commission and directing staff to prepare language to be
placed on the ballot for a vote of the qualified voters at the next general election, pursuant to the
requirements of Minnesota Statute 410.12.
Adopted this 24th day of July, 2006.
Rob Marty, Mayor
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 8A
Meeting Date:07/24/06
Type of Business:CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Tim Pittman, Public Works Supervisor
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6881 Approving the Removal of Propane
Tank and Filling Station
Meeting Date: 07/24/06
Background:
In the mid 1980’s the City of Mounds View was very pro-active into the alternate
fuels. This due to the rising cost of gasoline and the Environmental Pollution
Agency (EPA) talk of a Clean Air Act law that was going to be mandated that
would affect all government agencies to have at least 40% of their fleet on an
alternate fuel. With this information that the city was receiving, all city vehicles
including police squads were converted to propane. The cost averaged about
$800.00 per vehicle to convert to run on propane when initially introduced. With
the complete fleet on propane and minimal fueling stations available to
accommodate the City of Mounds View s needs, in 1991 the City of Mounds
View leased to own a 12,000 – gallon propane tank and filling station that would
replace the existing 1000 gallon tank that was insufficient and not cost effective
to serve the fleet. This practice continued until 1995 when problems were
developing due to technology. The computer that is installed with a conversion kit
was not capable of keeping up with the vehicles onboard factory installed
computer. This creating performance problems and damage to the fleet, staff
also looked at the cost of propane verses gasoline which was competitive, and
the cost of a conversion kit that was now about $2500.00 per vehicle not
including staffs time to install. The Environmental Pollution Agency (EPA) has not
made mention of this subject since the late 1990’s.
Discussion:
Staff has been asked to determine if it is in the City of Mounds View’s best
interest to keep the 12,000 gallon propane tank and filling station. At this time
there is only (1) vehicle left in the fleet that runs on propane, this vehicle is to be
removed from the fleet in 2007 according to the vehicle replacement policy. The
cost of a conversion kit for a new vehicle is approximately $3700.00 not including
installation, the cost of propane as of 7/05/06 is $1.90 per gallon. Staff contacted
the original supplier/installer of the 12,000 gallon tank and filling station
(Suburban Propane Inc.), now owned by Ferrellgas. They have no interest in
purchasing it back, Determan Brownie Inc. was also contacted and have returned
a purchase price of $3500.00 for the 12,000 gallon tank and labor costs of
$6900.00 to remove the filling station and all associated plumbing that Determan
Brownie Inc. is paying for. This also includes them to supply a 500 gallon
propane tank installed back on sight that was originally in place to supply well #2
as an alternate fuel in case of an emergency. With the removal of the 12,000
gallon propane tank the City of Mounds View’s ( Process Safety Management
and Risk Management Programs ) will be considerably affected with less liability
issues and also a minimal reduction to the City of Mounds View’s insurance
premiums.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tim Pittman, Public Works Supervisor
RESOLUTION NO 6881
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR THE Removal of a 12,000 Gallon
Propane Tank and Filling Station
WHEREAS, the City has a 12,000 gallon propane tank and filling station
located at the maintenance facility; and
WHEREAS, the use of this propane tank and filling station is not being
utilized to fuel the fleet; and
WHEREAS, staff contacted suppliers of such equipment and received
only one interested supplier; and
WHEREAS, staff received a proposal and contract from Determan
Brownie, Inc. for the removal of above stated equipment and placement of a 500
gallon tank to serve Well # 2 as an alternate fuel source in emergency situations;
and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City
Council approves a contract with Determan Brownie, Inc for the removal of
12,000 gallon tank, fueling station and all plumbing involved. This also includes
the installation of a contractor supplied 500 gallon propane tank and reguired
plumbing. The quote for this removal is : $6,900.00 The contractor will waive the
cost of removal and for the installation of supplied 500 gallon tank and plumbing
to supply Well # 2. In addition the contractor will pay the City of Mounds View
$3500.00 for the 12,000 gallon propane tank.
Adopted this 24TH day of July 2006.
______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST: ______________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 08B
Meeting Date July 24, 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.
DuBois Design & Remodeling (LSR, Inc.) General (Commercial) New
General Sheet Metal Company HVAC New
Lawrence Sign (LSE Acquisitions) Sign New
Prime Cut Tree Service, Inc. Tree Trimming/Removal Renewal
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
FESTIVAL IN THE PARK AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ____th day of ________, 2006, by
and between the City of Mounds View, a municipal corporation under the laws of
Minnesota (the “City”) and Festival in the Park of Mounds View, a Minnesota
non-profit corporation (the “Corporation”).
WHEREAS, the City is owner of City Hall, City Hall Park, and Community
Center (collectively the “Park”) located within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to sponsor and coordinate an annual
community event entitled, “Mounds View Festival in the Park” (the “Festival”), to
be held on August 20, 2006; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 47115-.191 and
other law, the City has the authority to operate a program of public recreation and
enter into agreements with the Corporation pertaining to the conduct thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City desires that the Corporation sponsor and coordinate
the Tournament and Festival; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to support the Festival, as set forth in this
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation is willing to undertake the Tournament and
Festival sponsorship and support of the City in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Scope of Tournament and Festival. The Corporation will sponsor
and coordinate all aspects of the Tournament and Festival.
2. Time and Performance. This Agreement will begin as of August 20,
2006, and will terminate as of August 21, 2006 (the “Termination Date”).
3. City Contribution. In support of the community-based Tournament
and Festival, the City will provide a contribution of up to $4000.00, which includes
the $140.00 dollar amount to be paid by the Corporation to the City for the
amusement license necessary for the Festival, with the amount of such actual
monetary contribution to be reduced by the cost to the City of providing city staff
assistance to the Tournament and Festival. The City will provide the assistance
of City staff to assist the Corporation as set forth on Exhibit A, which is
incorporated herein by reference. Then up to $4000.00 City contribution shall be
reduced by the amount of the personnel costs paid by the City for the Festival as
set forth in Exhibit A. The city will provide the assistance of City equipment to
assist the Corporation as set fort on Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by
reference. The city will allow use of the Park upon the Corporation requesting
and obtaining the appropriate permits from the City for the Park. The City agrees
to waive the permit fee for the Park. The City will pay up to the above-referenced
amount, minus the appropriate reductions, to the Corporation after the City’s
payroll period following the Festival.
If the Agreement should be terminated for any reason prior to the
Termination Date, the Corporation will be compensated on a pro rata basis for
the period of time that this Agreement was in effect. The Corporation shall pay
any and all taxes due to federal, state, and local governments, and the City shall
not withhold any amounts therefore. In addition, the Corporation shall be
responsible for any necessary workers compensation and unemployment
insurance required for the individuals performing services hereunder, and the
City shall have no obligation whatsoever in this regard.
4. Independent Contractor. The Corporation and neither it nor any of
its volunteers, employees or agents performing services hereunder shall be an
employee of the City. The Corporation is an independent contractor and it shall
retain control over the manner and means of the work set forth above. The
Corporation understands and acknowledges that the City shall not provide any
benefits of any type in connection with this Agreement, including but not limited
to health or medical insurance, workers compensation insurance, or
unemployment insurance. The Corporation shall in no case have the power to
bind or obligate the City in any way to any third-party.
5. Insurance.
a. The Corporation shall provide comprehensive general
liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage with a combined
single limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such comprehensive general
liability insurance shall include, but not be limited to, coverage for
mechanically-operated amusement devices, alcohol sales, and fireworks
displays. The policies of insurance shall name the City of Mounds View
as an additional insured.
b. The Corporation shall provide evidence of automobile and
mobile equipment insurance coverage for all motorized vehicles used in
connection with work under this Agreement with a combined single limit
for bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence.
c. The Corporation shall provide Workers’ Compensation
coverage in the statutory amount required for all individuals performing
services under this contract such as contractors’ employees,
subcontractors, independent contractors, etc.
d. The Corporation shall provide Employer’s Liability insurance
coverage (Part B. of the Workers’ Compensation Policy) in the amount of
$100,000 bodily injury each accident, bodily injury by disease $500,000
policy limit, $100,000 bodily injury by disease each employee.
e. A Certificate of Insurance showing coverage as indicated
above with a carrier that is acceptable to the City of Mounds View as well
as a copy of all policies of insurance shall be submitted to the City Clerk-
Administrator at least 30 days prior to the Festival. The City reserves the
right to reject the carrier if it is not an A+ carrier licensed to do business in
the State of Minnesota.
f. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of any
immunity or limitation on liability to which the City is entitled under law.
6. Termination. If either party fails to perform its obligations under this
Agreement, the other party may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice
of the intention to terminate to the other party at least thirty (30) days prior to
such termination, provided, however, that if Corporation’s failure to perform its
obligations hereunder creates or constitutes, in the sole judgment of the City, a
threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, the City may immediately terminate
this Agreement.
7. General Terms and Conditions.
a. The Corporation will provide all equipment used by the
Corporation, except the City equipment as set forth in Exhibit B, which is
incorporated herein by reference.
b. Corporation will control its own schedule of work hours as
necessary to sponsor and coordinate the Festival.
c. Any and all reports, and other work products, whether
completed or not, that are prepared or developed by the Corporation as a
part of this Agreement shall be jointly owned by the City and the
Corporation and shall be made available to the City promptly at the City’s
request or at the termination of this Agreement. The Corporation shall
provide annual financial reports including all revenues and expenditures
related to the Festival for the past three years prior to execution of this
Agreement and a financial report including all revenues and expenditures
related to the Festival for the present year within thirty days of the date of
the Festival.
d. Any titles of the several parts of the Agreement are inserted
for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing
or interpreting any of its provisions.
e. A notice, demand, or other communication under this
Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or
delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid,
return receipt requested, or delivered personally to the following
addresses:
City: 2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
ATTN: Clerk-Administrator
Corporation: 8120 Red Oak Court
Mounds View, MN 55112-5843
ATTN: Sherry Gunn
or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party
may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as
provided in this Section.
f. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
g. This Agreement is made and shall be governed in all
respects by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Any disputes,
controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the
state or federal courts of Minnesota, and the parties to this Agreement
waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on
convenience or otherwise.
h. If any provision or application of this Agreement is held
unlawful or unenforceable in any respect, such illegality or unenforceability
shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect,
and this Agreement shall be construed as if the unlawful or unenforceable
provision or application had never been contained herein or prescribed
hereby.
i. This Agreement, together with its Exhibits, which is
incorporated by reference, constitutes the complete and exclusive
statement of all mutual understandings between the parties with respect to
this Agreement, superseding all prior or contemporaneous proposals,
communications, and understandings, whether oral or written, concerning
this Agreement. This Agreement may not be amended nor any of its
terms modified except by a writing authorized and executed by both
parties hereto.
8. The Corporation shall protect, indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless the City and its governing body members, officers, agents, servants,
and against and from any claim, demand, suit, action, or other proceeding
whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising
from this Agreement or the activities undertaken pursuant to it. The provisions of
this paragraph 8 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
9. The Corporation will provide the City with a comprehensive
accounting and detailing of the expenditure of funds contributed by the City to the
Festival and the Corporation.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed as of the date first above.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
By:
Its: Mayor
By:
Its: Clerk-Administrator
FESTIVAL IN THE PARK OF MOUNDS VIEW
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
EXHIBIT A
CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE ESTIMATE
1. Maintenance workers:
2 workers X 20 hrs @ approx. $32/hr $1,280.00
3 seasonal workers X 12 hrs @ approx. $13.hr $ 468.00
2. Police:
2 officers X 8 hrs @ approx. $55/hr $ 880.00
$2,520.00
EXHIBIT B
CITY EQUIPMENT
1. Public Works Equipment:
Large box 1 ton truck
Small box 1 ton truck
1 Large dump truck
2 -Pick up trucks
Tandem trailer
Front-end loader
City generator
Post pounder
2 Utility trucks
2 Golf carts
Hoses
Extension cords
Water shut off keys
2. Fire Dept:
Fire truck
Item No: 08C
Meeting Date: July 24, 2006
Type of Business: CB
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: Resolution 6887 Approving the 2006 Festival in the
Park Contract
Discussion:
On the July 17, 2006 Work Session the City Council discussed and reviewed the Festival in
the Park of Mounds View contract. Attached for your approval is the Festival in the Park of
Mounds View Contract.
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution 6887authorizing the Mayor and Clerk-Administrator to execute the 2006
Festival Agreement with the Festival in the Park of Mounds View.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION 6887
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
FESTIVAL IN THE PARK OF MOUNDS VIEW FOR THE
2006 FESTIVAL IN THE PARK EVENT
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View desires to co-sponsor an annual community
event entitled “Mounds View Festival in the Park” to be held on August 20, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 Festival Agreement, attached as Exhibit A, has been reviewed
by the City Council, and has been reviewed and approved for execution by the Festival in the
Park of Mounds View, the non-profit organization in charge of the Festival.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve the attached Festival Agreement as set forth in Exhibit A and authorizes its
execution by the Mayor and City Clerk/Administrator.
Adopted this 24th day of July, 2006.
______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 8D
Meeting Date: July 24, 2006
Type of Business: Consent Agenda
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Chief of Police, Mike Sommer
Item Title/Subject: Approval to Hire a Replacement Police Officer for the Current
Opening
Background:
A Police Officer was terminated from employment by the City on July 10th. This created
an opening for the position of Police Officer. The purpose of this staff report is to seek
council approval to hire a replacement police officer from the current active Mounds View
Police Civil Service Commission eligibility list. The final candidates will be presented to
the Council for final approval at a subsequent council meeting. The candidate must be
scheduled for and successfully pass a thorough background investigation, psychological
testing, medical examination, and physical agility testing prior to their start date.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Sommer
Chief of Police
RESOLUTION NO. 6885
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE A POLICE OFFICER
WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists for a police officer position on the Mounds
View Police Department, and;
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission has a current
active list of applicants who have conducted the written portion of the testing process for
the position of Police Officer, and;
WHEREAS, the existing list has over 50 candidates, and it is anticipated that a
suitable candidate will be selected from this list, and submitted to the Council for final
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby authorize staff to begin the hiring process for a Police Officer to fill the
current vacancy.
Adopted this 24th day of July 2006.
______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
June 26, 2006 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Mayor Marty, Councilmember Stigney, Councilmember Gunn, 16
Councilmember Flaherty, and Councilmember Thomas 17
18
NOT PRESENT: None 19
20
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 21
22
A. Monday, June 12, 2006 City Council Agenda 23
24
City Administrator Ulrich recommended that Item 7M be considered before Item 7G because 25
there are many people here to speak to that agenda item. 26
27
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To Approve the Monday, June 26, 2006 agenda 28
amended. 29
30
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 31
32
5. PUBLIC INPUT 33
34
There was none. 35
36
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 37
38
None 39
40
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 41
42
A. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 773, an 43
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Relating to Landscaping, Fences and 44
Retaining Walls (ROLL CALL VOTE) 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
1
Community Development Director Ericson stated this action will update the zoning code 2
regarding retaining walls, fencing, and landscaping. He said the Planning Commission discussed 3
retaining walls and considered adding a definition for terraces and how the function of the code 4
works in a practical sense, and recommended the amendment that was presented at the last City 5
Council meeting. 6
7
Community Development Director Ericson stated the ordinance adds definitions for landscaping 8
and retaining walls, and clarifies that a retaining wall can be located in the same manner as a 9
fence, cannot be located on a property line, but can be located without a setback. 10
11
12
Community Development Director Ericson said Staff feels it is a good compromise and clarifies 13
that a fence or retaining wall is not subject to a setback requirement. He noted the ordinance also 14
prohibits certain kind of fencing, such as barbed wire or electrified fencing except in special 15
cases such as water treatment facilities or those that need additional security. He said that such 16
fences would be subject to public notifications and hearings. 17
18
Community Development Director Ericson said the first reading of the ordinance was read at the 19
last Council meeting and this is the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. 20
21
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. 22
23
Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, noted that she had two suggestions dealing with 24
safety and liability issues that she feels should be the concern of the Council. 25
26
Ms. Amundsen suggested that “unless the said retaining wall will be directly next to an existing 27
fence specifically installed to meet the building code requiring a minimum 5-foot fence around a 28
swimming pool” be added to the retaining wall language. She explained that her neighbor built a 29
retaining wall next to her fence, which she feels compromised the intent of the code. She said 30
because of her neighbors’ action, she and her husband spent extra money and time to increase the 31
height of their fence to bring it up to code. She said her family built the fence taller for safety’s 32
sake and asked the Council to keep safety a priority. 33
34
Ms. Amundsen stated that her instance may have been isolated, but if something had happened, 35
she and the City could have been sued. She said she does not want herself or the City to be 36
subject to a liability because of outdated codes. She said she also does not think it is fair for 37
residents to have to pay to update their property to meet new safety codes. 38
39
Ms. Amundsen also suggested for language to be added requiring all retaining walls two feet or 40
higher to have safety devices, such as a fence or railing. She explained that someone could fall 41
off a high retaining wall and it is no different than having railings on stairs. She noted that off of 42
County Road H2, there is a very large retaining wall without a fence, which she believes is an 43
accident waiting to happen. She said the Council needs to consider safety and liability when 44
making these decisions. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, noted that Community Development Director Ericson 2
spoke to him after the last meeting and that he appreciated the offer to speak to the Council about 3
additional language. He stated that rather than changing the code and having to go back and 4
change it again, it would make more sense to change it right the first time.. He asked the Council 5
to consider additional issues and language. 6
7
Mr. Amundsen asked whose insurance would be liable if a resident builds a retaining wall along 8
a lot line, and someone else accidentally fell off – the person owns the wall, or the neighbor onto 9
whose property the person fell. He asked the Council to consider such a liability issue before the 10
code is voted upon. 11
12
Mr. Amundsen asked if retaining walls are allowed to be built up to the easement or street in the 13
front yard and asked how high they could be built. He stated he felt the Planning Commission 14
did not address such issues. He suggested the code include language stating “at the discretion of 15
City Staff.” He asked the Council to not approve the ordinance and to send it back to the 16
Planning Commission to address safety and liability issues. 17
18
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. 19
20
Mayor Marty said the Amundsens raised some good points. 21
22
Councilmember Flaherty said he believes the Amundsens have excellent suggestions, particularly 23
addressing height of retaining wall against an existing fence. Councilmember Flaherty noted, 24
however, the safety railing on any retaining wall could be problematic. He said he understands 25
the liability question, but does not know if the code could cover all contingencies. He does 26
believe some language regarding heights of existing fences would be beneficial. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas agreed, but stated that she believes Ms. Amundsen’s language is too 29
specific. 30
Councilmember Thomas also suggested that any retaining walls over a certain amount of feet, to 31
be specified by the Council, be subject to safety inspections.. She added that both of the 32
suggested languages could be inserted and would solve the issues. 33
34
Councilmember Gunn asked if the judgment would be made by one person. Councilmember 35
Thomas suggested it should come before the Council. 36
37
Mayor Marty also agreed that Ms. Amundsen’s language was too specific, but agrees with 38
several of her points. He asked if the code should be investigated and sent back to the Planning 39
Commission. He stated that when he refinished his deck, there were certain safety requirements 40
he had to meet. He added that he understands how someone could step off a retaining wall. 41
42
Community Development Director Ericson stated there were a few issues of concern and that it 43
would have been helpful to have such suggestions before the second reading of the ordinance 44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
because an amendment such as what is being proposed would require significant work. He 1
suggested tabling the action would be the best option. 2
3
Director Ericson said that procedurally, the ordinance could go back to the Planning Commission 4
for further review, but that typically, after the first reading, an ordinance does not go back to the 5
Planning Commission. 6
7
Director Ericson stated that he talked with the Public Works Director regarding the retaining 8
walls, and that while there are some instances in which a railing or fence would be necessary, he 9
does not believe it should be legislated. He stated there may be a way to build some 10
discretionary review into the ordinance, but would have to research the issue with City Attorney 11
Riggs. 12
13
Community Development Director Ericson said the issues could be discussed with City Attorney 14
Riggs, the Amundsens, and Planning Commission, and then brought back to Council. He added 15
that he agrees with Amundsens that the ordinance should only be improved upon once. 16
17
Mayor Marty said he would like to take the time to straighten out the ordinance now rather than 18
amending or changing it later. He said he would like something more specific and safety-19
related. He said he would be okay grandfathering in people who already have retaining walls and 20
believes in the future, adding more language will cover the Council. 21
22
Councilmember Thomas said the issues of 2-feet and under were brought up and said she does 23
not want to get too specific with the code. She said she does not want to over-legislate what 24
happens on private property. She added she would like to allow a City Staff person the discretion 25
to make decisions regarding these issues. She said all over-legislation will do is make people not 26
update these properties. 27
28
City Attorney Riggs said Community Development Director Ericson’s recommendations would 29
be appropriate. Regarding the liability question, he said if something happens on private 30
property, the City’s insurance is not liable. He added that the issues brought up before the 31
Council warrants further discussion. 32
33
Councilmember Gunn said she agrees with Councilmember Thomas. She asked if it is the City’s 34
place to determine liability if people fall off one wall into a neighbor’s yard. She said it is a 35
private property issue. She said she agrees that specific legislation will make people not update 36
their properties. 37
38
Councilmember Stigney asked about the railing, and what kinds of railings would have to be 39
legislated. He said he also believes the Council is over-legislating. 40
41
Mr. Amundsen commented that the building code already legislates specifics, including steps off 42
of decks. He stated that if decks require certain things, retaining walls should require them as 43
well. He said such legislation for retaining walls is well within the Council’s ability. He added it 44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
is the Council’s ability and responsibility to maintain neighborly relations and the code should 1
help encourage friendly neighborly relations. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney replied that decks do require railings, and using the same analogy 4
toward retaining walls will require too many things. Mr. Amundsen said his point is that the 5
Council does legislate safety issues. 6
7
Mayor Marty said he would like to table the discussion and have Community Development 8
Director Ericson, City Attorney Riggs, and the Planning Commission take another look at the 9
code. 10
11
Councilmember Thomas said sending this to the Planning Commission is too much, that Staff 12
should be able to complete changes. Councilmember Gunn said she likes Councilmember 13
Thomas’ suggested amendment. 14
15
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To postpone action on the Adoption of 16
Ordinance 773, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Relating to Landscaping, Fences 17
and Retaining Walls, until the July 24, 2006 meeting 18
19
Councilmember Flaherty asked if July 10 would allow enough time, Community Development 20
Director Ericson responded the last meeting in July will be sufficient. 21
22
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
B. Public Hearing to Consider a Rezoning Request Submitted by Integra Homes 25
Relating to the Properties at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the West 26
Half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3, Medium Density Residential 27
28
1. Community Development Director Ericson explained to the Council that Ron 29
Lillestrand requests approval of re-zoning for the site of a proposed townhome 30
development. He stated the development originally entailed 21 town home units and 31
that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request based on several 32
factors, including density, privacy issues, an impact on adjoining properties, and lack of 33
guest parking. 34
35
Director Ericson stated that the developers have re-submitted a re-development application for a 36
simple re-zoning request. He stated the developers have reduced the density to 19 units, 37
reconfigured the layout of the town homes, added guest parking, and changed the width and 38
internal configuration of the driveways. 39
40
Director Ericson explained the Planning Commission had difficulty with the application because 41
they questioned if it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the County Road 10 42
corridor and the City’s vision of how the area should be redeveloped. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
Director Ericson said the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as mixed-use, Planned Unit 1
Development, within which housing is indicated as a component. He stated the proposed 2
development project is consistent with such a mixed-use designation. 3
4
Director Ericson said a concern is the project is due to a remaining PUD area that could no 5
longer be used if the town home project would go forward. He said the Planning Commission 6
felt the townhouse project was not what the City was looking for and was not consistent with the 7
Planning Commission and City’s vision for the area. He said the resolution attached 8
recommends denial. 9
10
Director Ericson said the Planning Commission is requesting that the City authorize a market 11
analysis of the property if the re-zoning is denied. He said that the Planning Commission 12
considered other potential uses of the property, and considering traffic on the corridor, 13
determined the town home project is not what they felt should go on the property. 14
15
Director Ericson said a notice of a public hearing was sent out to property owners within 350 16
feet. He said that while the Planning Commission is recommending denial, Staff feels the project 17
is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the City Council has discretion regarding 18
re-zoning. He advised that the Council has to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan, but it is 19
the Council’s discretion to determine what is or is not consistent. He said the ordinance could be 20
presented at the next meeting, but if the Council does not believe it is justified, a resolution for 21
denial will be presented at the July 10, 2006 Council meeting. 22
23
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. 24
25
Donna Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, said she does not want the re-zoning. She said traffic on 26
Groveland Road and Sherwood Road is horrible and she does not support the project. 27
28
Sandy Dewing, 2816 Sherwood Road, said a lot of traffic travels on Groveland Road and a lot of 29
police are on the road. She said it is a residential area and she is impressed with the quality of 30
the area. She said she is concerned that town homes will degrade the neighborhood and congest 31
the roads. She asked where the traffic will go and that there are a lot of people going into a small 32
area. She said she likes having some space, and said she is opposed to having town homes on the 33
particular spot. She said that she is not against town homes, she is against having a much denser 34
zoning area. She said her neighborhood will likely pick up some traffic from Medtronic and 35
asked then what her options would be. 36
37
Brian Bourassa, representing Intergra Homes, presented to the Council his vision of the town 38
home development and spoke of the traffic impact. He said that the Staff report is quite thorough 39
and that Integra reacted to public and Staff comments and have hopefully taken into account their 40
comments. He said the two-unit reduction was significant to re-position units, reduce the number 41
of people residing at the development, and add parking. He said compared to the last layout, 42
there are many more side-yards to side-yards. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mr. Bourassa stated that there was early consideration about an access road onto Groveland 1
Road, but that plan has not gone forward. He said the only access points proposed are private 2
connections granted to allow future access into the properties on the east and west, which are 3
potentially commercial developments. He reiterated that no access points would be on 4
Groveland Road or Sherwood Road. 5
6
Mr. Bourassa explained there was some consideration about the PUD at the Planning 7
Commission meetings. He said they investigated numerous options after the first option was 8
turned own, and because of the positioning of these parcels, determined townhouses would be 9
better because there was not much demand for retail or commercial businesses expressed for the 10
site. He added that a mid-block right-in, right-out access would not lend itself well to 11
businesses. He said there were some meetings between Integra and property owners and the 12
PUD would not be viable. 13
14
Mr. Bourassa said the town homes would be owner-occupied, and the benefits of the Association 15
will add to the neighborhood. He said the Association would be the point of contact for any 16
issues. He explained town homes are the best market demand in this area, and described the 17
units as 1400 –1600 square feet with two car garages. He stated some would be split-entries, 18
along with a variety of housing options. He presented exhibits of the detached town homes to the 19
Council. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn asked about the price of the town homes, and Mr. Bourassa replied 22
between $225,000 and $275,000. 23
24
Ms. Meyer stated that Groveland Road and Red Oak Drive are major thoroughfares, and that she 25
believes people will cut across the street and across County Road J to the town homes, and that 26
there will be increased traffic because of the development. She said that without sidewalks in the 27
area, it is a potential hazard for children walking to the parks. 28
29
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. 30
31
Councilmember Flaherty stated at the last meeting a resident commented that less than desirable 32
people may move in to such a development. He stated he does not believe owner-occupied 33
homes would attract those types of people and that they will increase the market value of the area 34
substantially. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty said in the Staff report, it was noted that this type housing is under-37
represented in the City and asked if the Harsted town homes were factored in. He asked if once 38
those are done, would there still be a lack of town home housing. Community Development 39
Director Ericson responded that he could not answer the question without further research. 40
41
Councilmember Flaherty said he wants to see the rendering of the town homes and said it may 42
help the residents. He said in terms of the traffic, particularly high-speed traffic, that the speed 43
limit is 30 mph on Groveland Road, Red Oak Drive, etc. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
Ms. Meyer replied that the traffic moves much faster, regardless of the low speed limit. 1
Councilmember Flaherty said it should be brought to police attention. Ms. Dewing said the 2
police are present, but they cannot patrol it all the time and traffic is very fast. Councilmember 3
Flaherty said he would like to see more elevations and is not convinced one way or another. 4
5
Councilmember Gunn stated she is leaning toward the approval of the rezoning because since she 6
has sat on boards in the past, she knows that it was the vision that further north on County Road 7
10 would be more residential with town homes and scattered small office buildings. She 8
explained that if the re-zoning is not approved, there is the potential that something else could be 9
built on the property generating far more traffic. She stated that no matter what goes in, they will 10
only have access off of County Road 10. She asked if the City would rather see residential or 11
business traffic on the streets. 12
13
Councilmember Stigney noted that according to the Planning Commission resolution, re-zoning 14
to R3 is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area. He asked what is consistent 15
with Comprehensive Plan for the area and said he is not sure what else would go in there. He 16
asked what the redevelopment expectation for the area is and if commercial zoning is beneficial. 17
He said his concern is what type of development will go in the area if the town homes do not. He 18
also noted he does not want to see low-end housing and would also like to see renderings of the 19
proposed development. 20
21
Director Ericson stated that on a daily basis, town homes generate fewer trips daily than a single-22
family home would and significantly less traffic than an office building or business. He said 23
other uses of the property would generate more traffic than the town homes. 24
25
Councilmember Thomas stated she appreciates the Staff report and opportunity to discuss the 26
issue before any decisions are made. She said the problem she has is that when the Commission 27
makes a recommendation, the Council should have a compelling reason to overturn it. She said 28
this development may be the best shot the City has to plan for the area, and said she wants to get 29
more information and have a specific reason to re-zone. She said she looks forward to working 30
with Staff on this project. 31
32
Councilmember Gunn asked how long ago the areas in question were zoned. Community 33
Development Director Ericson replied that the zoning, as presented, has been that way for 34
decades. He said the last property to be re-zoned was the Johnson property when it was re-zoned 35
to R-O, and otherwise, the properties are reflective of historical zoning from a significant amount 36
of time ago. 37
38
Director Ericson said the designation with the Comprehensive Plan is relatively new, adopted in 39
2001 or 2002. He said the basis for the mixed-use designation in the area was the reflection of 40
the desire to have redevelopment occur, and the mixed-use provided the most flexibility for the 41
City since at the time there was no clear vision. 42
43
Councilmember Gunn asked about the B-3 property, and Director Ericson said it is a former 44
commercial property and retains the commercial designation. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
1
Mayor Marty noted that the Staff report was very thorough and referred to the surrounding area 2
as being single-family residential. He said while an enhanced market value is desirable, the 3
higher density would be detrimental to the surrounding area. He said during the Planning 4
Commission public hearings, only one individual spoke in favor of the development, a Spring 5
Lake Park resident. He pointed out that based on comments at the meetings, residents’ 6
underlying concern was that development was not what was originally intended when it was 7
designate a mixed-use area, and that approval would eliminate the ability for a comprehensive 8
block-wide project. 9
10
Mayor Marty explained that a year ago when Integra first approached the City, they were unable 11
to purchase the adjoining properties. He said it is the City’s hope to develop the entire area 12
rather than taking a chunk out of the middle. He noted that in their summary, the Planning 13
Commission recommended unanimously that the Council authorize a study of the area for a 14
better use for the land. He pointed out that the Planning Commission and residents believe there 15
is a better use than the town home development. 16
17
Mayor Marty said, as stated earlier in the EDA meeting, that a feasibility study is more proactive 18
to determine what City wants and what would fit in to the area. He said instead of being reactive 19
to certain projects, the City needs to be proactive to determine the best use for land. 20
21
Mayor Marty added that at present, he is not convinced that reducing density from 21 to 19 units 22
is a big change, regardless of the re-alignment of the units. He stated he is not convinced the 23
town home project is the best use for the area and cannot approve re-zoning. Mayor Marty said 24
the Council can override Planning Commission recommendations, but there has to be a very 25
strong argument to do so and he has not seen such to date. 26
27
Councilmember Gunn questioned what the original intent was for the area, considering it was 28
continually mentioned. Community Development Director Ericson said there is a difference of 29
opinion regarding the original intent, and there is nothing in writing specifying the exact nature 30
of the original intent. He said that some people remember it being commercially intended, others 31
believe it was to be more residential. He said the Planning Commission has taken the opinion 32
that the town home development is not what was originally intended. 33
34
Councilmember Flaherty said he is not yet ready to disregard the development. He said he wants 35
to see the proposal first. He agreed that there must be extenuating circumstances to go against 36
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, but he is not ready to dismiss it. 37
38
Councilmember Gun said she believes the Council needs more details, planning, and exact 39
renderings before they make a decision. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas stated it would help to have a discussion about “if not this, then what.” 42
She said there is only a certain amount of detail the property owners can provide at this point and 43
if town homes are not what are desired for the area, the Council needs to decide what the original 44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
intent is. She said if the decision is made to go in a different direction, they need to determine 1
what direction to go. 2
3
Mayor Marty said he believes the EDC could look it over and discuss what the best use might be. 4
He said the Planning Commission denied the town home development, and should consider what 5
the best use of the property is. He said the EDC, Planning Commission, City Council, and Staff 6
should discuss what the best use for the area would be. 7
8
Mr. Brouassa addressed “if not this, then what,” question and replied it is his thought that 9
perhaps the Planning Commission was listening to the residents and reacting to comments 10
desiring a commercial building. He said residents would like something commercial and that he 11
tried to explain that they did try to meet with other property owners and a consolidation was not 12
possible. He said an effort was made to consolidate the parcels, but it could not happen, and a 13
commercial building in this area would be very difficult. 14
15
Mr. Brouassa said that in the Staff Report, the question is asked if the development follows the 16
Comprehensive Plan. He said he believes it does follow the Comprehensive Plan because it 17
allows for linkages for other developments. He said there was no intention to go for a PUD with 18
this submittal, and brought up the points that they were trying to work within the Comprehensive 19
Plan. 20
21
Councilmember Stigney said that large retail will not go in to such an area. He said another gas 22
station could go in, another drugstore, or something else that is more undesirable. He said he 23
does not believe office buildings will work and asked what other possible options existed. He 24
said if Integra could come up with a good plan, he would consider it. 25
26
Ms. Meyer said that traffic flow needs to be considered. Councilmember Stigney replied that 27
anything built in the area will affect traffic flow. 28
29
Ms. Dewing asked if the Council has to approve anything that will be built in the area. 30
Councilmember Gunn and Councilmember Thomas replied that if it meets the appropriate 31
zoning code, the Council has no say about what goes in. 32
33
Mayor Marty said the Council cannot deny a business or homeowner unless there is a very good 34
reason. He explained that if a business complies with all City rules and codes, the Council 35
cannot deny it. 36
37
Ms. Dewing said that the developers have not been talking to her or her neighbors, because she 38
has not been approached by the developers. She said if she were approached, she would be more 39
involved. 40
41
Councilmember Thomas replied that the discussions to which Mr. Brouassa was referring were 42
probably between people who owned property the developers hoped to purchase, not with 43
neighbors away from the development. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, asked which neighbors they have talked to and if there are 1
any conflicts of interest between the builders and the Council Members. He asked whom the 2
developers have approached. 3
4
Mayor Marty said he wanted to ask what property owners were approached, particularly since 5
one property owner said they were not approached. He said that currently, they are discussing 6
potentially rezoning, and that it is not moving forward at this point. 7
8
Councilmember Gunn asked if the Council could put it on to the work session and do some 9
homework, where it could be discussed in-depth, rather than during the Council meetings. 10
11
Ms. Meyer said he does not want to have to come back again, and that he has made it clear that 12
they do not want it to be rezoned. He said that there was already a house torn down, Bourassa 13
replied it was not part of their property. 14
15
Mayor Marty asked if the issue could be put on the August work session, but Community 16
Development Director Ericson urged the Council to not draw the discussion out longer than 17
necessary. He said the residents do not want to keep coming back. He said that if the Council 18
feels certain things need to come back to them, they could request it, but urged the Council to not 19
put it off further. He said the developer would like to have a decision one way or another. 20
21
Mayor Marty asked if the development will be 2-story units, Brouassa replied they will be 1.5 – 2 22
stories. 23
24
Mayor Marty asked the Council if they wanted to discuss it at the next work session, and 25
Councilmember Stigney replied he wants to see what the developers are proposing. 26
27
Mr. Meyer said that as long as a road is not built, he would be okay with the Development. 28
29
Director Ericson said that the developers would have to come back to the City with their plan for 30
roads and anything that deviated significantly from the original plan would probably not be 31
approved. He explained that this is a rezoning request, and that the developers would still have 32
to go through a couple steps before any development would be approved. He said that it is clear 33
that the residents do not want a street on that corner. He said that the Planning Commission 34
would like a more comprehensive development on the area and if the other property is included 35
in the plan, there could be a street. 36
37
Mr. Meyer asked the Council if they could make an immediate decision regarding the road and 38
the Council replied they would not be making any decisions. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas said that if the Council decides to rezone, there must be a specific 41
purpose and she would like to have a better idea about what they would see if it were to be 42
rezoned. She said she would like to know the best use for the area. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
Mayor Marty said those issues will be addressed in the marketing plan. Councilmember Thomas 1
replied that she would like to see what the Council decides is their vision for the property and if 2
the town homes support the vision. Councilmember Thomas said she is not comfortable making 3
the call without knowing the overall vision. 4
5
Mayor Marty said the discussion is better for a work session. Councilmember Thomas added she 6
would prefer a memo from Staff and Mayor Marty agreed that the Council needs to discuss the 7
vision. 8
9
Councilmember Flaherty said one lot is zoned for commercial right now, and right now, the 10
developers may sell the land to the first commercial business they desire. Councilmember 11
Flaherty said the Council needs to figure out if it wants commercial or residential zoning in the 12
area. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas made the point that she does not want to deny or approve the zoning 15
presently, but would like to make the decision as soon as possible. Councilmember Gunn 16
suggested the issue be discussed at the July 17 work session and so the decision can be made at 17
the following City Council meeting. 18
19
Community Development Director Ericson recommended that, because it will extend the 20
timeline, to ask the developer if it is acceptable to wait for a decision. He said it is better to ask if 21
the developer is okay with deferring the decision in case he is not okay waiting. Mr. Brouassa 22
said he would appreciate the consideration at the work session and is willing to wait. 23
24
Council consensus was reached to defer the issue to the next work session on July 17, 2006. 25
26
C. Public Hearing Resolution 6857, Consider a Conditional Use Permit and 27
Development Review for Midwest Motor Express located at 2169 Mustang 28
Drive 29
30
Planning Associate Heller stated that two requests are being presented and that Midwest Motor 31
Express enjoys being located in Mounds View and would like to stay. She said they are 32
requesting approval of a CUP to operate as a freight motor terminal. She said this is a 33
housekeeping issue and added that when the building was first built, a CUP was not required, but 34
now it is. 35
36
Planning Associate Heller explained the property is zoned industrial and motor freight terminals 37
are permitted conditional uses within the zoning. She said the use of the property will not 38
change, traffic will not change, and it will not depreciate surrounding properties. 39
40
Planning Associate Heller said Midwest Motor Express will add a 10,500 square foot addition, 41
with 24 additional dock doors, which will allow more efficient staging in the warehouse. She 42
said they do not anticipate any additional traffic. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
Planning Associate Heller stated the majority of the parking is asphalt, and adding additional 1
square footage to equal 67 parking stalls is not an issue. 2
3
Planning Associate Heller explained that the setback would not change and that the parking area 4
would be increased by 75 feet to the north. She added that the north end of the property abuts a 5
mobile home park and there is a large grassy hill separating the properties. She added Staff says 6
it will continue to be an adequate buffer. She said notices were sent to individual homes within 7
350 feet, and Staff has not heard any feedback. She also added that Midwest Motor Express has 8
contacted Rice Creek Watershed District to inquire if a permit will be needed from them. 9
10
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. 11
12
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. 13
14
Councilmember Flaherty asked if the addition architecture will be consistent with the current 15
building. 16
17
Mr. Greenstein, of Midwest Motor Express, said the addition will be consistent. Mayor Marty 18
asked about the resolution itself, which states under section three that development plans must be 19
approved by Public Works for drainage. He asked about the Rice Creek Watershed District and 20
pointed out drainage was not stated in the resolution. He asked if any ponding would be 21
required. Planning Associate Heller said she does not know at this point or even if it will require 22
a permit. 23
24
Councilmember Gunn said her guess is the only impervious space increase would be with the 25
asphalt on the parking lot, and it would not have a large effect. 26
27
Mayor Marty said a similar situation came up with SYSCO and the Council understands the 28
situation. 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6857, a 31
Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for Midwest Motor Express located at 2169 32
Mustang Drive 33
34
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
D. Continued Public Hearing from June 12, 2006, to consider Resolution 6830 37
an Off Sale intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for ABC Liquor located at 38
2840 Highway 10. 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich said in reviewing the item, Staff found some items, which indicated 41
there were some issues with the business. He said that Staff found the violations indicated were 42
first-time offenses by owner Mr. Xing and ABC liquors and Staff recommends approval of 43
license. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
Mayor Marty re-opened public hearing at 8:53 p.m. 1
2
Hearing no public input, Mayor Marty closed public hearing at 8:53 p.m. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the City code language stating that a license will not be 5
granted to anyone who has been convicted. City Attorney Riggs said a complaint has been filed 6
and is being prosecuted. Councilmember Flaherty asked what will happen if Mr. Xiong is 7
convicted. City Attorney Riggs said the license will then come back to Council for suspension or 8
revocation. 9
10
Councilmember Flaherty explained that he believes Mr. Xiong understands the severity of not 11
asking for identification. Councilmember Flaherty said he does not believe the Council should 12
take the man’s livelihood away after a first offense. He said he approves of license and 13
monitoring Mr. Xiong. 14
15
Councilmember Thomas said she is willing to go ahead with the license at this point, but if the 16
conviction takes place, there needs to be a further discussion about consequences. She noted the 17
City prides itself on maintaining such rules, and this is not the only type of business they need to 18
monitor. She said the criminal case against Mr. Xiong needs to be watched very carefully, 19
particularly because a minor was involved. 20
21
Mayor Marty said that from reading the Staff report and police reports, what swayed him was a 22
statement from the officer that when he was talking to Mr. Xiong about the specific incident and 23
Mr. Xiong stated he sold alcohol to the suspect several times and was not too worried about the 24
age of the minor. 25
26
Mayor Marty said that the City has received many complaints that it is easy for minors to buy 27
alcohol from ABC Liquors. He said that according to documentation, the Police Department is 28
aware of problems in the store. 29
30
Mayor Marty said that for non-willful violation, it is appropriate to initiate a license revocation. 31
He said that at this point, he sees the violation as non-willful, Mr. Xiong has not been convicted, 32
and that the violation is the first documented incident. Mayor Marty said he would like a 6-33
month probationary period for the license and if there are no more incidents, then the 34
probationary period is over. 35
36
Councilmember Thomas said she is not sure how a probationary license would work and that the 37
Council has the right at any time to revoke a liquor license. She added she would not mind 38
stating the Council will be monitoring the situation closely. 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich said he agrees with Councilmember Thomas’ points, that if there is a 41
conviction or other violations, the City would consider revocation of the license. Mayor Marty 42
agreed with the suggestion and would like to make sure Mr. Xiong realizes the City takes the 43
issue very seriously. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
City Attorney Riggs said if there is a violation at any time, the Council can suspend or revoke the 1
license and putting Mr. Xiong on notice will not hurt. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6830 4
an Off Sale intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for ABC Liquor located at 2840 Highway 10. 5
6
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7
8
E. Continued Public Hearing from June 12, 2006, to consider Resolution 6833 9
an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Robert’s Sports Bar and 10
Entertainment located at 2400 County Road H2 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich stated this item was postponed from the June 12th meetings, when 13
several residents voice specific complaints about the operation including noise and trash. He 14
said they attached police reports to the Staff report. He stated the owner of Robert’s Sports Bar 15
and Entertainment is here to address complaints. 16
17
Mayor Marty re-opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. 18
19
Mr. Hutchinson, the attorney for Mr. Waste, the owner of Robert’s, stated they reviewed the 20
Police Department record, and in the last 18 months, there have been 7 noise complaints, 3 of 21
which were anonymous, 5 of which were in 2004, and 3 of which were in 2006. He said before 22
the meeting last month, Mr. Waste was not aware of the noise complaints. 23
24
Mr. Hutchinson stated it is the nature of the nightclub that there will be noise around the bar and 25
in the street. He said Mr. Waste will do everything he can to be treat his neighbors well. He said 26
some of the complaints were that the doors were left open and Mr. Waste and the nightclub 27
managers have addressed the issue. 28
29
Mr. Hutchinson added that the traffic noise could be coming from many different places, not 30
necessarily Robert’s. He said that Robert’s does not condone the behavior, that the bar has a 31
good relationship with the Police Department. He said he does not believe anyone has been 32
tagged for excessive noise in or directly outside the lot. 33
34
Mr. Hutchinson stated the nightclub has been there for 20-30 years, and to some extent, there will 35
always be some noise associated. He said Mr. Waste will do his best to be courteous, and that 36
there have not been an inordinate number of police calls. Mr. Hutchinson said it is not a “biker 37
bar,” and that motorcyclists patronize several bars in the area. 38
39
Sarah Mears, 5292 Edgewood Drive, stated she does not care about the motorcycle noise. She 40
said her concern is the music and that even with the doors in the bar closed and in their house 41
shut, that they can hear the noise. 42
43
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
Ms. Mears also stated her concern that a man was drunk in her front yard and asked why he was 1
not refused alcohol at the bar before he got to that point. She voiced her concern about trash in 2
her back yard including a plastic bun rack that was thrown over her fence last year. 3
4
Ms. Mears stated she and her husband were aware they moved in behind a bar and that she called 5
the police before moving in and was informed there were no noise complaints. She stated her 6
main concern was the trash and beer bottles in her yard where her children play 7
8
Ms. Amundsen asked about the noise issues, and said she has contacted Fridley, whose Police 9
Department has noise ordinances stating maximum decibel levels. She asked if Mounds View 10
has a decibel limit in an ordinance and asked if that is something that should be discussed. 11
12
Sean Mears, 5292 Edgewood Drive, said that he was not aware until tonight that there have been 13
police reports filed. He said he is disappointed that the Police Department did not provide the 14
adequate information about the police reports. He commended Robert’s that the bar noise has 15
gone down and that the doors have been closed in the past few weeks, and that he takes it as a 16
sign that some things are being done to address the neighbors’ complaints. 17
18
Mr. Mears stated that on a Sunday, a band was performing, and that they could hear everything 19
that was being said. He asked at what point is loud too loud. He said that he understands he 20
lives next to a bar, but that the noise is too much. He said all he is asking is the volume is turned 21
down and the doors remain closed. 22
23
Cindy Hilger, 5287 Edgewood Drive, agreed that over the last two weeks, the noise level has 24
come down significantly. She said that a band’s bass and the noise from the bar cannot be 25
compared to a dog barking in the middle of the afternoon. She stated she is voicing her concern 26
about the noise and liked the decibel level suggestion. She said the police have been called since 27
the meetings two weeks ago, and that one night was particularly bad. 28
29
Wayne Joelberg, 5287 Edgewood Drive, stated that a woman on the City Council used to live on 30
Edgewood Drive and had a meeting with Robert’s. He said that a wall was proposed to hold 31
down the noise and that he would like to see a real noise barrier put in. He said he is sure 32
Robert’s can afford it 33
34
Jeff Hilger, 5287 Edgewood Drive, stated that the noise is loud Thursday through Sunday. He 35
said he would like to reiterate that the noise is a huge problem and keeps him awake at night. He 36
said after the bar closes the noise from the motorcycles and yelling wakes him up. 37
38
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas stated the reason things like this come back for renewal is so residents 41
have these opportunities to speak. She said the bar can control the noise level of the music and 42
stated she would like to see a meeting between the City and the bar owner. She said it would be 43
appropriate to make sure the bar owner was following through with issues that are within his 44
power. She noted her expectation is that the bar owner will do what he can within his power. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
Councilmember Flaherty said the hearing was postponed to give Mr. Waste an opportunity to 2
address his neighbors’ concerns. He stated he agrees with Councilmember Thomas that the 3
liquor license should not be denied. He added he believes the public hearing is a good 4
opportunity for Mr. Waste to address his neighbors’ concerns. 5
6
Mr. Waste replied that he had not done much to reduce the noise level in the last two weeks, but 7
has made sure the doors are closed. Mr. Hutchinson added that closing the doors makes a big 8
difference in the noise level and that Robert’s management is attempting to react to the 9
complaints appropriately. 10
11
Mr. Joelberg said he has called the Police Department several times, but did not realize he could 12
call 911 to report problems. He stated he had gotten the “run-around” from the Police 13
Department. 14
15
Mr. Hilger stated at the last meeting they asked the Police Chief to research the complaints and 16
stated that he also did not know he was supposed to dial 911. 17
18
Mayor Marty stated all of the police complaints all of the police complaints were available for 19
review at the Council meeting. He stated he met with Mr. Waste during a similar situation and 20
said Mr. Waste made several improvements, including planting bushes in front of the building. 21
22
Mayor Marty stated he does not recall any complaints at the Council level and noted that the 23
residents now know how to contact the police. He stated Mr. Waste has a history of stepping up 24
to make improvements to the establishments. He noted the liquor license renewal process is in 25
place so residents can speak to such issues. 26
27
Mayor Marty stated he like Ms. Amundsen’s idea about the decibel meter. He said the noise 28
ordinance does specify a decibel level within a certain amount of feet. Councilmember Thomas 29
stated she believes it is an audible range limit, not a decibel limit, and that there are legal issues 30
surrounding decibel levels. 31
32
Mayor Marty suggested said the Council determine if something more needs to be done and that 33
it be discussed at a later date. He stated he does not believe in holding up the license. 34
35
Councilmember Flaherty added that a decibel reading may help Robert’s determine the 36
appropriate volume of music. 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty said a decibel level may help Robert’s to determine the appropriate 39
volume of the music. 40
41
Mr. Joelberg stated they are not trying to stop the license, but they want the noise quieted and do 42
not believe there should be a problem doing so. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
Ms. Amundsen clarified that her neighboring business’ decibel meter was used, and that Fridley 1
has a decibel that is allowed. She clarified that the business voluntarily tested their decibels and 2
reduced the noise. 3
4
Mayor Marty suggested that Mr. Waste work with the Police Department to correct such issues 5
and applauded Mr. Waste on his willingness to address the issues. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6833 an 8
On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment located 9
at 2400 County Road H2. 10
11
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 12
13
F. Resolution 6852 Approving Rotary Club Membership. 14
15
City Administrator Ulrich stated this item was discussed at the June 5th City Council work 16
session. He stated it was the consensus of the Council to invite the president of the New 17
Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club, Mr. George Winiecki, to a Council meeting to introduce 18
himself, answer questions, and explain the benefits of the Rotary membership. 19
20
Mr. Winiecki presented the Council with information about the Rotary Club. He explained 21
Rotary is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders and that members of 22
club are involved in all aspects of business and government. He said they have mayors, real-23
estate developers, Council members, school superintendents, principals, and many private and 24
public sector members. 25
26
Mr. Winiecki stated the Rotary Club provides community and humanitarian services, promotes 27
high ethical standards and promotes peace throughout the world. He explained that there are 28
many rotary clubs throughout the world. 29
30
Mr. Winiecki said that the Rotary Club has made several contributions throughout the area. He 31
stated for example, that the club in Mounds View returns the funds they raise back into the 32
community. He noted that $600 was contributed to a Mounds View Park, that they contributed 33
to a youth latch-key program through Community Partners to Youth latchkey program in, and 34
also gave money to the Northwest Youth and Family Service. 35
36
Mr. Winiecki said the club gives to the local food shelf. He said they used to distribute food 37
directly to the citizens, but that working with the food shelf is more efficient. He said they have 38
a large Easter egg hunt which includes 700-800 children. 39
40
Mr. Winiecki stated the explained that they contribute to CEAF, the Community Emergency 41
Assistance Fund, which assists people who have needs for emergency money. He stated they 42
hold people accountable. He explained that they also organize a carnival for children who have 43
Spina bifida. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
Mr. Winiecki stated that occasionally they send young women and men from Irondale to a 1
leadership camp and provide scholarships to high school students. He said they have contributed 2
to the Irondale choir and donated to the Mounds View library. He also noted they contributed to 3
the Mounds View Public School’s caravan that has a handicapped lift, which for a nominal fee, is 4
available for anyone in the 621 School District. 5
6
Mr. Winiecki said there are also activities on the national level, but the bulk of the money raised 7
by their club goes back into the local community. He said that members vote on where the funds 8
go. He noted several prominent people who are Rotary members. 9
10
Mr. Winiecki noted that the Bill Gates Foundation donated $25 million dollars, which Rotary 11
matched for a total $50 million. He added that Rotary is the only organization worldwide that 12
has a chair on the United Nations. 13
14
Mr. Winiecki stated they are not just looking for business or governmental leaders, but also 15
citizens. He stated the club expects a member to be active in the community. 16
17
Mayor Marty stated he suggested City Administrator Ulrich join the Rotary Club. He said he 18
feels it would be beneficial to the City and City Administrator. Mr. Winiecki said it is good for 19
the community to have someone from the City involved in Rotary. 20
21
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6852 22
Approving Rotary Club Membership. 23
24
Councilmember Stigney commented that the Rotary is a wonderful organization, but questioned 25
whether the City should fund the membership for City Administrator Ulrich. He said he does not 26
support the City paying for the membership. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas stated that as long as the City benefits from the Rotary Club she 29
supports the membership. She said if the time comes that the Administrator is not an active 30
member, then the City should no longer fund them membership. 31
32
Mayor Marty pointed out to City Administrator Ulrich that there are volunteer opportunities after 33
hours. 34
35
Councilmember Flaherty asked if the membership, should it be approved, is for the City of 36
Mounds View not for City Administrator Ulrich personally. Mayor Marty stated that it is and 37
asked if there could be an alternate to attend. Mr. Winiecki replied that the international by-laws 38
are being re-written, and an alternate could be designated. 39
40
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 41
42
Mr. Winiecki said the goal is that the dues and bulk of income is put back into the City. 43
44
M. Resolution 6895 Approving a Tobacco-Free Park Policy 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
1
Public Works Director Lee said this was reviewed at a work session and it was recommended it 2
come back to the Council. He mentioned the exception areas, such as designated smoking areas 3
at the Community Center, and individual cars in parking lots in City parking lots. 4
5
Councilmember Stigney asked where the designated smoking areas at the Community Center are 6
located. Christina Ford, representative of the Youth Smoke Free Coalition, asked for one 7
designated area away from the children’s area and away from the front door. 8
Councilmember Stigney asked if the area would be inside or outside. Director Lee replied that 9
the current area is on the north side of the building, near the main entrance off of Bronson 10
Avenue. The Community Center Staff asked that it be moved away from the daycare. Director 11
Lee responded that two years ago they poured concrete slabs and added a picnic table to remove 12
smokers from the main entrance, but they could look for alternative areas. 13
14
Mayor Marty asked if there is another entrance that could be accommodating. Director Lee said 15
there are two available spots, and now they are asking for both to be eliminated. Councilmember 16
Gunn said the smoking is used mostly during evening events, when the daycare is not open. She 17
said the playground is a significant distance from the back door, and that the only alternative is 18
the front door, which is a poor choice. 19
20
Councilmember Stigney asked about the other exception regarding the definition “adjacent” to 21
the public park. Director Lee stated it would be vehicles parked on the street adjacent to the 22
public park since not all parks have parking areas. 23
24
Councilmember Gunn asked for changes to the language. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas said she cannot support a “tobacco-free” policy and she is 27
uncomfortable with the “smoke-free” policy. Mayor Marty said he can understand that youth 28
clubs and buildings are tobacco free, but that citizens believe the City is putting too many 29
restrictions on smoking. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated he said he agrees with Councilmember Thomas that “smoke-free” is okay. 32
He said he likes other Cities’ ordinances that discuss youth activities, and would like to stress 33
that there is no use around children. 34
35
Director Lee stated that a smoke-free rather than tobacco-free policy would require significant 36
signage policies. Mayor Marty added he has been looking for “tobacco free” signs in other cities, 37
but hasn’t seen any. 38
39
Councilmember Flaherty stated a tobacco-free policy will be a voluntary compliance and there 40
will be no enforcement or penalty for using tobacco. He said it is more a symbolic issue than 41
anything else. 42
43
Cindy Palm, 2266 Terrace View, reiterated that it is an empowering tool for residents, and that it 44
gives citizens power to make sure tobacco is not used. She said it will help citizens ask others to 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
not smoke. She said it is self-regulating and whether it is “smoke-free, or “tobacco-free,” doesn’t 1
matter. She said tobacco does not belong in City parks. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6895 4
Approving a Tobacco-Free Park Policy. 5
6
Councilmember Thomas said she does not believe the difference between “tobacco free,” and 7
“smoke free” is a matter of semantics and it does infringe on personal freedoms. She said that 8
the City’s responsibilities are not to deem what is appropriate for children. She believes a 9
smoke-free policy protects health and safety and that is the City responsibility, and she is even 10
okay with going with a smoke-free ordinance. 11
12
Councilmember Flaherty said he is okay with a smoke-free or tobacco-free sign, but would not 13
agree with an ordinance. 14
15
Commissioner Stigney said he believes it is an effort to bring an awareness to the makers of the 16
tobacco that it should be done. He said it is an awareness-oriented policy, not an enforcement 17
policy, and supports anything that encourages children not to smoke. 18
19
Mayor Marty stated he agrees that City buildings be smoke free, and understands the role model 20
aspect, and that he is against smoking around children or children’s activities. He stated that he 21
has a problem with over-regulation based on what he has heard from residents about restricting 22
outside settings. 23
24
Mayor Marty stated he understands the intent of the policy, but does not think people should be 25
restricted from smoking outside. He stated it is legal to smoke and it is not the City’s place to 26
make it illegal. 27
28
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Thomas, Marty) Motion carried. 29
30
CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:00 p.m. 31
32
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY to continue the City Council meeting until 10:45 33
p.m. 34
35
Aye – 5 Nay – 0 Motion carried. 36
37
G. Resolution 6860 Approving Change Orders No. 27 through 34 for the City 38
Hall Rehabilitation Project 39
40
Public Works Director Lee stated that the change orders refer to various items included in the 41
City Hall project. He pointed out that Staff has been working with the consultant, and the total 42
amount of change orders, except for one, will bring up total amount to $147,150, which will be 43
the maximum change orders for the project. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
Director Lee said the change does include the addition of the handicapped power door. He 1
pointed out there may be issues the Council will discuss. He added that the consultant would 2
meet with the Council to go over any issues and questions. 3
4
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6860 5
Approving Change Orders No. 27 through 34 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project 6
7
Councilmember Flaherty brought up Change Order #27 and asked if the contractor missed that 8
they had to tie the walls together. Director Lee stated they did miss some areas. Councilmember 9
Flaherty said he believes it should have been in original bid. He said that #34 should have been 10
foreseen as well. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated his is not happy with such change orders and asked if the engineers and 13
consultants could be held responsible. Councilmember Stigney agreed with Mayor Marty. He 14
asked if the handicap access will be an additional $6000. Public Works Director Lee stated the 15
old ones were demoed, and the new handicap access controls would be $6000. He stated that to 16
re-install the old doors would have cost more. 17
18
Mayor Marty stated he wants the handicap access controls back so that City Hall is accessible. 19
Director Lee responded that the final total may be less than $6000. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated that the issue wasn’t to go back to get the doors, but that it was 22
an unacceptable design from the beginning, that the handicapped doors should not have been 23
removed. 24
25
Mayor Marty commented that the “MV” is back in the Council Chambers, but asked if the “City 26
of Mounds View” will be added. Public Works Director Lee stated the “MV” is back on a 27
temporary basis, and different letters have been ordered. Mayor Marty stated he does not want to 28
buy new ones. City Administrator Ulrich stated it is the old logo that was used and that a new 29
logo will go in the back. Mayor Marty stated he does not know why it was changed. City 30
Administrator Ulrich stated it has already been ordered. 31
32
Councilmember Stigney asked if there would be a change order for the electrical box to be 33
corrected, and Public Works Director Lee responded that there would be no change order and 34
that the company would fix the box. Councilmember Stigney also asked about the electrical cord 35
on the floor. 36
37
Councilmember Stigney stated he believes this money is wasted and does not support it. 38
39
Aye – 5 Nay – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 40
41
H. Resolution 6866 Including Various Items in the Feasibility Report for the 42
Street and Utility Improvement Program / Public Informational Meeting 43
Update 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
Public Works Director Lee stated that on May 22, the Council authorized a feasibility report for 1
street improvement program. He stated the City wanted to meet with residents to determine 2
issues and concerns. He said an informational meeting was held on June 13 and about 50 people 3
attended. He said one of the items had several mini-topics and a feedback form. 4
5
Director Lee said street design and curbing was one of the main issues discussed. He said 10 of 6
14 feedback forms touched on street design and curbing, that 9 of 10 were in favor, and 7 7
indicated they would go along with the project. He added that only one person was against the 8
project. 9
10
Director Lee said 10 of the 11 were opposed to public walkways. He said the City does have a 11
trail way plan and trail way advocacy group that submitted a report in 1992. He stated Staff is 12
recommending that these are included in the feasibility report to identify issues surrounding 13
providing pedestrian corridors in the areas and the cost associated with them. 14
Director Lee stated another issue is mailbox grouping. He said the City has an ordinance that 15
when streets are re-done, the mailboxes be grouped. He said of the 14 feedback forms submitted, 16
four of them commented on the mailbox grouping and two were opposed, two were indifferent. 17
18
Director Lee said that one of the main issues is traffic volumes and speed in the area. He said it 19
was nearly unanimous that this was a concern. He said Staff will recommend a proposal for 20
traffic study of the northwest quadrant of the City. He stated this will collect data about this part 21
of the City, identify the issues as far as traffic volume and speed, and then provide a list of 22
possible solutions that could be implemented. 23
24
Director Lee said as to the issue of whether to include the segment of Sherwood Road, Staff 25
recommends sending a survey to property owners on the segment asking if they do or do not 26
want to be included with the project. 27
28
Director Lee addressed the elimination of the Hillview/Fairchild access to County Road 10 and 29
stated Staff recommends that they continue with the plan and incorporates this into the feasibility 30
report. 31
32
Director said Staff is recommending the approval of six items to be included in the feasibility 33
report: 34
1. Street Design Option that was implemented in 2004 which included concrete curbing 35
and gutter; 36
2. Trail ways as indicated by the City’s comprehensive trail way plan; 37
3. Mailbox grouping as required by City code; 38
4. Following the County Road 10 improvement plan as adopted in August 2002 indicating 39
the closing of the Hillview/Fairchild access; 40
5. Including Sherwood Road segments between Long Lake Road and Edgewood Drive 41
only if property owners indicate a desire to be included by a popular vote; 42
6. Any other items as directed by the City Council. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
Councilmember Gunn asked about the rest of Red Oak Drive and stated that there were many 1
people who requested it be done. Director Lee said Red Oak Drive would be somewhat 2
problematic since there have been no surveys of people to the north. He said the projects need to 3
terminate at some point, and that not everything can be one at once. He said in terms of Red Oak 4
Drive, it could become disjointed and it will be determined by the study. 5
6
Councilmember Gunn asked about the infrastructure that will be redone, and why the portion of 7
Sherwood Road will be excluded. Director Lee responded that a televising of the systems is 8
being done currently and if it is not included in the current project, it will be added to another 9
project 3-5 years down the road. 10
11
Director Lee said the segment along Sherwood Road will be a main haul road for the project and 12
it made sense to include it in the project. 13
14
Councilmember Thomas was under the impression that all seven areas of infrastructure have 15
been televised. Public Works Director Lee said it was done 7 years ago and it will be re-16
televised, along with the storm sewer. Mayor Marty stated he is okay with Red Oak Drive not 17
being included in the project, and people will see the new road and become more excited about 18
having theirs redone. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas asked about the width of the street, and Director Lee said that will be 28 21
feet curb to curb. He said within the study area, streets are about 28 feet curb-to-curb, if not a bit 22
wider. Mayor Marty asked if they will be slightly narrower and Director Lee replied that yes they 23
would be slightly narrower and that in the 2004 project, there was a slight decrease in width. 24
25
Councilmember Stigney asked about curbing and the costs difference in the barrier curb if it was 26
made from bituminous rather than concrete. He asked Public Works Director Lee if he ever 27
presented the cost difference to the citizens. 28
29
Director Lee stated there is not a surmountable bituminous curb option, and the cost difference 30
would be about the same, if there were, he said the cost is negligible. Councilmember Stigney 31
asked about the cost of a bituminous-lipped curb versus the concrete barrier curb. Director Lee 32
stated the cost difference is negligible and there is no option for a bituminous lipped curb. 33
34
Mayor Marty asked about the difference in costs and Director Lee responded there is no 35
difference in costs between bituminous-lipped curbs or a bituminous barrier curb. He stated 36
building the “lip” is probably not an option because contractors will not build it. He added that 37
most cities are not going with bituminous curbs. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney asked if the cost difference between the bituminous “lip” curb and 40
concrete barrier curb is $186. Director Lee stated that most bituminous “lip” curbs are either 41
buried under soil or have been shaved off over the years by snowplows etc. Councilmember 42
Stigney stated he questions the difference in costs. Director Lee said the total project difference 43
in cost is $122,000. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 25
Mr. Amundsen stated he did some research and the contractor indicated they can always raise the 1
edge of the “shoe” and roll it somewhat with their machinery, but will have to build the back of 2
the curb with an extra pass. He stated he cannot believe that two passes will cost the same as 3
one. 4
5
Mr. Amundsen stated he had heard that citizens are frustrated with traffic patterns, and in South 6
Minneapolis, several options were used to divert traffic patterns from the neighborhoods. He 7
recommended that Mounds View look into such solutions. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas stated the difficulty of shifting the traffic pattern is that some cars will 10
go through other peoples’ roads. She stated that if Red Oak Drive is blocked, cars will go to 11
Groveland Road and that the number of cars will not be changed, they will just go somewhere 12
else. She added there is a major thoroughfare and the Council must be cognizant of the 13
problems. 14
15
Councilmember Thomas stated she believes a study is necessary to determine where to move the 16
traffic. She stated she agrees with Mr. Amundsen and does not believe there is such a small 17
difference in price between bituminous and concrete. 18
19
Mayor Marty questioned sidewalks and trail ways and asked what it will cost to include those in 20
the feasibility report. Director Lee responded it would probably cost several thousand dollars. 21
22
Mayor Marty said in the past, there was a comprehensive trail way map. He added that traffic is 23
not diminishing, it is increasing. He said having an avenue for people to walk and bike should be 24
considered in the feasibility report. 25
26
Councilmember Gunn said most neighborhoods do not want sidewalks, and that the Council 27
should not consider it. Director Lee said that it could be a matter of just striping the road as was 28
suggested in the 1992 report. Councilmember Thomas said her concern is that if they present 29
something the neighborhood does not want, that they will say “no” to the entire project. She said 30
she would prefer to give the citizens what they asked for. 31
32
Councilmember Flaherty said he agrees with Councilmember Thomas that sidewalks were off the 33
table. He said the only issue he remembers was the question of bituminous versus concrete 34
curbs. 35
36
Councilmember Stigney asked about closing the access from Fairchild Avenue to County Road 37
10, and about the survey results. Director Lee responded that there was not a survey taken, and 38
there were no comments regarding Fairchild Avenue to County Road 10 on the comment forms. 39
Councilmember Thomas said she recalled things written in on the feedback form regarding 40
closing Fairchild to County 10. Councilmember Stigney said he believes they should talk to 41
residents first. 42
43
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 26
Public Works Director Lee noted that in terms of elimination of the Hillview/Fairchild access t 1
there were extensive meetings when it was decided upon and he is proposing staying with what 2
was agreed upon. 3
4
Mayor Marty stated they are striking # 2, which was the consensus of the Council. 5
6
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6866 7
Including Various Items in the Feasibility Report for the Street and Utility Improvement Program 8
/ Public Informational Meeting Update as amended. 9
10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
I. Resolution 6853 Authorizing the Contract for Architectural Services for the 13
Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Mounds View Community 14
Center 15
16
City Administrator Ulrich stated that on June 5, 2006, the City Council at a work session 17
reviewed the proposed improvements to the Mounds View Community Center, which included 18
concept and development level plans. 19
20
Administrator Ulrich stated that the Mounds View Community Center Task Force presented the 21
initial report to the City Council on March 6, 2006 and based on that report, the Council acted to 22
hire DSGW Architects, Inc., to conduct a study of the task force recommendations. 23
24
Administrator Ulrich explained that the architect worked with City to refine the concepts, to 25
make additional recommendations, and to develop a cost estimate for the proposed improvement, 26
estimated at $600,000. 27
28
Administrator Ulrich added that there are several funding sources; including Special Projects 29
Fund, Park Dedication Fund, Internal loans with general tax levy, Internal loans repaid with 30
increased room rentals and membership fees and Capital bonds. 31
32
Administrator Ulrich stated market feasibility was discussed briefly, and ultimately the first 33
source would be funding the proposed improvements with internal loans paid back through 34
rentals and fees generated by the facility. He said that it was the anticipation of the Community 35
Center Task Force that memberships revenues could be increase with several different 36
membership opportunities. 37
38
Financial Director Beer had included spreadsheets with different levels of memberships and what 39
revenues those would bring in. He said the break-even point is about 400 memberships of each 40
type for a total of 1200 memberships. He said that if no memberships were sold, the City would 41
run a deficit of $190,000. He stated with the status quo, the City contributes $47,000 annually to 42
the Community Center operation in addition to the budget for $142,000. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 27
Administrator Ulrich said it is strongly recommended the City contract for the preparation of a 1
market feasibility study. He stated that the firm Maxfield Research, Inc. would charge $7,000 for 2
such service. He also suggested doing a survey of residents, which was not included in $7,000 3
quote. 4
5
Administrator Ulrich stated received a quote from Anderson Niebuhr and Associates, which has 6
done work for various locations who recommend the City survey sample of 400 residents, which 7
would cost $28,000. City Administrator stated he asked about reducing the cost, and a 300-8
person sample would bring the total down to $23,900 and sampling 200 would reduce the cost to 9
$22,000. 10
11
Administrator Ulrich stated Staff recommends the market study, and based on the results, the 12
scope of the project may be changed. He said the costs to do plans and specs would cost around 13
$36,000, which is $27,000 for plans and $9,000 for project supervision. 14
15
Mayor Marty asked about the community survey and how much it cost the City to conduct it. 16
City Administrator Ulrich said it cost around $11,000. Councilmember Thomas said the Council 17
has discussed the issue extensively, and Councilmember Stigney has asked for market study. She 18
said it can’t hurt to have information however the cost of the survey is ridiculous. She said the 19
City can get feedback information itself for a much less significant cost. Councilmember 20
Thomas said the market study is necessary and that she thinks the Council should go ahead. 21
22
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the more he considers the project, $600,000 is a lot of 23
money. He said he is not even sure he is ready to go as far as a market study. He said he would 24
like it to go back to a work session one last time to determine if there are any other possibilities, 25
but said he would like to exhaust all avenues before the money is spent. 26
27
Councilmember Flaherty said the committee was not a trained market study committee, but that 28
before money is put into a study, it warrants further discussion. 29
30
Councilmember Thomas said the City is losing $50,000 a year on the space. She said she would 31
like to know what Councilmember Flaherty would like to accomplish that hasn’t been already 32
discussed. 33
34
Councilmember Flaherty responded he does not know what would come out of it. 35
Councilmember Thomas said it comes down to pulling the trigger and getting things done. 36
Councilmember Flaherty asked if there is consensus if a fitness center is the best option. 37
Councilmember Thomas replied that a market study will help determine if it is. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney commented that the task force has given this recommendation. He said 40
that selling 400 each of the memberships will only pay for the original construction costs and that 41
the Council is not paying attention to what is going on. Councilmember Stigney said a market 42
study needs to be done and said the survey could happen through the election in November. He 43
said he does not believe a fitness center is a fit and that will not make any money. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 28
David Jahnke, said that he agrees that a fitness center is a die-hard option. He said he has not 1
talked to anyone who believes a fitness center is needed. He questions spending $600,000 on a 2
City-run fitness center. He said he is opposed to the City saying they can make money with the 3
fitness center. He said postponing it and asking residents for feedback is his preference. 4
5
CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:45 p.m. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To extend the City Council meeting until the agenda is 8
finished. 9
10
Councilmember Flaherty asked that the meeting be postponed after this item because at the end 11
of meetings, things are rushed. He said either more meetings need to happen or shorter agendas. 12
He feels that the things farther down on the agenda do not get due diligence. 13
14
Mayor ,Councilmember Thomas, Councilmember Gunn, and Councilmember Flaherty stated 15
their opinion that the meeting should continue until finished. 16
17
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 18
19
Mayor Marty said he spoke with City Administrator Ulrich about it and agreed about the 20
feasibility report. He stated the feedback he has gotten is that residents are questioning the 21
exercise center. He stated there are fitness centers in the area and questioned the City’s fitness 22
center’s necessity. He added his biggest concern is whether or not the City could get the 23
necessary memberships. 24
25
Mayor Marty said he asked about the City subsidizing the Community Center and does not want 26
to spend money for the study. He suggested it be put on the ballot as a referendum item to ask 27
the citizens exactly what they want. He said several years ago the Police Department was put on 28
a referendum question and passed. He suggested between now and the election, that the City put 29
out RFPs to find out what other ideas there are for the building. 30
31
Councilmember Gunn asked what the RFPs would be for. Mayor Marty said something could 32
come in that was never discussed before. Councilmember Gunn asked if RFPs have to be 33
something specific. Councilmember Thomas stated that a “general” RFP could not be put out. 34
Mayor Marty said he believes it should go on the ballot to let the citizens decide. 35
Councilmember Gunn asked about the rest of the project, Mayor Marty asked for it to be put on 36
hold. 37
38
Councilmember Thomas asked what would be put on the ballot and pointed out with the Police 39
Department the City already did the research. She said that the information must be there in 40
order to put it on the ballot. She said even if it was on the ballot, the research must be done first. 41
She added she likes the referendum on the ballot, but that the market analysis must be done first. 42
43
Mayor Marty stated he just came up with the idea after deciding $28,000 was too much to spend 44
on the research. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 29
1
Councilmember Stigney asked what should go on the ballot, and said he believes that citizens 2
should be asked if they want a fitness center that will cost “X” numbers of dollars. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty asked that this come up for discussion again, and asked if the fitness 5
center really should be the issue the market analysis tackles. Councilmember Flaherty stated he 6
agrees with Councilmember Thomas that the research should be done before a question is put on 7
the ballot. 8
9
Mayor Marty said they do not have to determine the question tonight. He reiterated that 10
numerous questions have been raised to him regarding the Community Center. He stated he 11
wants to make it citizen-friendly and wants to slow down and take another look at the project. 12
13
Councilmember Thomas asked if the City has enough information to make a decision and Mayor 14
Marty stated Staff could do the work. Councilmember Thomas asked if there is enough 15
information, and if not, how would the Council get the information. 16
17
City Administrator Ulrich stated the issue is right for a work session, including discussion about 18
a ballot resolution. He said there could be other quotes for market studies, consideration for 19
RFPs, as well as looking at interim alternatives before a decision is made. 20
21
Mayor Marty said there is not enough information to ask questions about any alternate uses, and 22
asked if there really is enough information to start the fitness center. He stated his concerns 23
about such questions. Councilmember Thomas said there is enough information to warrant a 24
market study. 25
26
Councilmember Stigney pointed out that the $636,000 is a capital cost and does not include 27
operational costs. He asked about the costs to the residents. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated he does not want to fault the Community Center Task Force and thanked 30
them for their work on the issue. He questioned, however, if the fitness center is the direction in 31
which the City wants to go. 32
33
Mr. Amundsen said that one of the exercise centers in town took over a year to get to 400 34
members. He said that he doubts the Community Center will have an easy time drawing people 35
away from the professional exercise center to the public center, and that if it does, it will put the 36
professional center out of business. He stated he believes it should be a banquet and meeting 37
center. 38
39
Councilmember Thomas responded that all of those things would be maintained; potluck rooms, 40
banquets, and that will be continued regardless of the fitness center. Councilmember Thomas 41
said that without a market study, the City would never know whether or not a fitness center is 42
feasible. She said any other opinion is just a guess. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 30
Councilmember Flaherty said at the present time, he is not ready to authorize the contract and 1
resolution. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney said it will be an awful long work session and stated these types of 4
things should not be on the Council agenda to begin with. 5
6
7
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To postpone approval of Resolution 6853 8
Authorizing the Contract for Architectural Services for the Preparation of Plans and 9
Specifications for the Mounds View Community Center and discuss it further at the July 17th 10
work session. 11
12
Mayor Marty stated that until this meeting, he was ready to approve the expenditures. He said he 13
would rather err. on the side of caution to postpone. 14
15
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 16
17
J. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 775, an Ordinance Vacating an 18
Excess Highway Easement Associated with the Hidden Hollow South 19
Residential Subdivision 20
21
Community Development Director Ericson explained that this request would vacate an easement 22
that was dedicated to the City in 1976. He stated the City had no problem with the easement, but 23
Ramsey County rejected the plat because of it. 24
25
Community Development Director Ericson explained the City Council approved the Hidden 26
Hollow South final plat on April 24, 2006. He stated the residential subdivision created six 27
single-family home sites from two deep lots on Wooddale Drive. He said that when the plat was 28
brought to Ramsey County for recording, the County Surveyor rejected it due to the presence of a 29
“Highway Easement” at the rear of the lots. He stated the County’s policy, as he has learned, is 30
that right of way easements may not persist as easements – they shall either be dedicated as right 31
of way or vacated. He said until one of the two actions is undertaken, the plat cannot be 32
recorded. The effect is to strike the word “highway” from the plat. He said the second reading 33
and public hearing would be at the next City Council meeting. 34
35
Mayor Marty asked if it would vacate the highway and keep the easements and Director Ericson 36
replied it would. 37
38
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 775, an 39
Ordinance Vacating an Excess Highway Easement associated with the Hidden Hollow South 40
Residential Subdivision. 41
42
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 43
44
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 31
K. Resolution 6863 Approving the Communications Coordinator to attend the 1
NATOA Conference in Florida 2
3
City Administrator Ulrich stated this was discussed on June 12th but failed to achieve the three 4
required votes. He added the issue is being brought back and was revised to reflect a limit of 5
$1000 of City Funding is used. He said the tuition will be paid by the North Suburban Cable 6
Commission. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6863 9
Approving the Communications Coordinator to attend the NATOA Conference in Florida. 10
11
Councilmember Stigney stated he does not believe that the City should spend the money to send 12
the Staff member to Florida and that she should explore educational opportunities closer. 13
14
Mayor Marty said there was more information last time, and there were a number of different 15
sessions offered in Florida that are not offered locally. He said he feels it is a good opportunity 16
for the Staff member because she is the Communications Coordinator and has many additional 17
responsibilities. 18
19
Mayor Marty said the only change he would put in was the maximum dollar amount, which is 20
spelled out in the resolution 21
22
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 23
24
L. Resolution 6894 Approving Compensation Amounts for Easement 25
Acquisition and Authorization to Execute Easements for the Silver Lake 26
Road Sidewalk Improvement Project 27
28
Public Works Director Lee stated that as part of the project, the City needs to obtain eight 29
temporary and eight permanent easements. He said the permanent easements are very small in 30
size, from 2-6 feet, and that is why Staff is proposing setting an amount of $2.27 per square foot. 31
He stated the costs are based the Associated guidelines for obtaining right-of-way. 32
33
2. Director Lee continued that after consulting with representatives from Kennedy and 34
Graven, they realized that the lending companies holding the properties may require a 35
land appraisal. He asked the Council to contract for land appraisals if needed and to 36
make offers for the easements based of the appraised value. 37
38
Director Lee stated Staff recommends authorization of the purchase. 39
40
Mayor Marty stated that at $2.27 per square foot, the property with most square footage would be 41
cost $1000 and the smallest $350. He said that the appraiser will cost more than purchasing the 42
property outright. He asked if taxes would change since the house and property are appraised 43
together. Finance Director Beer replied that they would change. 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 32
City Attorney Riggs stated that if it is an easement, the amount will be negligible. He added that 1
some mortgage lenders require, that when any modifications are made to the property, a package 2
be submitted including an appraisal. 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated an appraisal may not be needed for every property. 5
6
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6894 7
Approving Compensation Amounts for Easement Acquisition and Authorization to Execute 8
Easements for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project as amended. 9
10
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11
12
N. Resolution 6867 Approving the Hire of Ben Knitter as Police Officer 13
14
Police Chief Sommer explained that the new hire will replace an officer who retired. He stated 15
the number one candidate has passed all of his tests and background checks. He added that Mr. 16
Knitter was the valedictorian of his high school class and had an excellent grade point average 17
throughout college. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6867 20
Approving the Hire of Ben Knitter as Police Officer. 21
22
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
8. CONSENT AGENDA 25
26
Mayor Marty requested to pull Item 8F for additional discussion. 27
28
A. Resolution 6854, Approving the 2006-2007 Mounds View Business Licenses 29
B. Licenses for Approval 30
C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:05 pm to consider an 31
Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 32
D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:10 pm to consider an 33
Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 5201 Program Avenue 34
E. Resolution 6855 Approving Contract for Legal Services with Kennedy and 35
Graven 36
F. Resolution 6856 a Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of Service 37
Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five Year 38
Employment Milestone as of 2006. 39
G. Resolution 6861 Approving a Charitable Gambling One-Day Permit for the 40
Mounds View Community Theatre for the August 20, 2006 Mounds View 41
Festival in the Park. 42
H. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:15 pm to Consider the 43
Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Vacate an Excess Highway 44
Easement Associated with the Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision. 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 33
I. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:20 pm to Consider an 1
Outdoor Liquor Consumption Endorsement for Moe’s located at 2400 2
Highway 10 in Mounds View. 3
J. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:25 pm to Consider an 4
Appeal of a Variance Denial for 2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage 5
Space at 8135 Long Lake Rd. 6
K. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:30 pm to Consider a 7
PUD Amendment Request from LandCor Regarding the Property Located at 8
2442 County Road 10. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended. 11
12
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13
14
F. Resolution 6856 a Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of Service 15
Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five Year 16
Employment Milestone as of 2006. 17
18
Mayor Marty asked to recognize these employees. He read the resolution in full including a list 19
of employee names. Mayor Marty thanked the individuals for their service to the City. 20
21
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To approve Resolution 6856 a Resolution Authorizing 22
the Distribution of Service Appreciation Certificates to Employees having Achieved a Five Year 23
Employment Milestone as of 2006. 24
25
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26
27
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 28
29
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as 30
presented. 31
32
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33
34
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 35
36
A. June 12, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 37
38
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To postpone corrections of the June 12, 2006 City 39
Council meeting minutes until the July 10, 2006 meeting. 40
41
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 42
43
11. REPORTS 44
45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 34
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 1
2
Mayor Marty stated he received a letter he wanted to read but will read it at a later time. He 3
stated it is a letter of commendation to a Public Works staff for the good job they do. He said he 4
would like to thank the Warrens for writing the letter. 5
6
B. Reports of Staff 7
8
City Administrator Ulrich stated there will be an appreciation lunch on June 28th at the 9
Community Center and compensation plans are due to be presented to the City on July 5th and 10
will be included in the July 10th meeting. 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich stated a report about walkable communities will be distributed and 13
some of the ideas will be incorporate into the planning. 14
15
1. Random Park Building Replacement Project Update 16
17
Public Works Director Lee stated that there is an option to use a residential-style sprinkler system 18
that will still comply with the code. There are some complications, that 1.5” water supply will 19
still be needed. He said a full report will be submitted on July 10th. 20
21
Mayor Marty asked if 3/4” or 1” was already going into the building and Public Works Director 22
Lee replied that 3/4” is currently being use. Director Lee continued that Staff was investigating 23
whether 1” would be able to do the job. He stated they are talking to a contractor who specializes 24
in residential sprinkler systems to determine if such a system would work. 25
26
Community Development Director Ericson discussed a memo he provided to Council regarding 27
ongoing code enforcement activity in the City. Mayor Marty asked about an “AO Issue,” and 28
Community Development Director Ericson stated it stood for an Administrative Offense. 29
30
Finance Director Beer stated that as part of year-end management report, the state auditor 31
requested information regarding the use of Administrative Offenses. He added that he is looking 32
for direction about how to respond. 33
34
City Attorney Riggs stated that it is best for Staff to bring back a memorandum. He said at that 35
point in time the Council can direct Staff how to respond. 36
37
C. Reports of City Attorney 38
39
There was none. 40
41
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 17, 2006, at 7 p.m. 42
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 10, 2006, at 7 p.m. 43
44
13. ADJOURNMENT 45
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 35
1
The meeting was adjourned at 11:41 p.m. 2
3
Transcribed by: 4
5
Lauren McKay 6
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 7
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
July 10, 2006 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Acting Mayor Stigney, Councilmember Gunn, Councilmember Flaherty, 16
and Councilmember Thomas. Mayor Marty arrived at 7:44 p.m. 17
18
NOT PRESENT: None. 19
20
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 21
22
A. Monday, July 10, 2006 City Council Agenda 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Monday, July 10, 2006 agenda as 25
presented. 26
27
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
5. PUBLIC INPUT 30
31
David Jhanke, 8428 Eastwood Road, asked what has been done regarding the Community Center 32
and additional RFPs. Administrator Ulrich stated the item is scheduled for the July 17th Work 33
Session. 34
35
Mr. Jhanke asked if the Council has done anything to find out if there were any other potential 36
uses or if the City will go ahead and spend the money. Administrator Ulrich replied that Staff 37
has discussed other options. He added one party may be interested in renting space and there 38
may be another process, which will be discussed in more detail on the 17th. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas stated there was not enough discussion time to determine a direction at 41
the last Council meeting and no direction has been given to Staff. 42
43
Councilmember Flaherty added the Council decided to table the discussion until there was a full 44
Council at the work session to discuss whether there should be requests for more RFPs. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
1
Mr. Jhanke thanked the Council and added he does not care how long someone talks as long as is 2
said in few words. 3
4
Acting Mayor Stigney noted he had asked Economic Development Coordinator Backman if he 5
has looked into any alternate options for the Community Center and he hopes Economic 6
Development Coordinator Backman brings something forth on the 17th. 7
8
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he objects to the time limit on public comments. 9
10
Acting Mayor Stigney stated that in acting practice, the Council appreciates comments and 11
listens to citizens’ full concerns. He explained why there is a 3-minute limit. 12
13
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS 14
15
There were none. 16
17
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 18
19
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6875 Approving 20
an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 21
22
Community Development Director Ericson stated that before the Council is a request from Clear 23
Channel Outdoor for a billboard at the Mermaid location. He stated the City of Mounds View 24
adopted an ordinance dictating where billboards could be located. He stated the Council 25
recommended the site at 2200 County Road 10 as a place where a billboard could be relocated. 26
He stated this is one of the sites where Clear Channel has a lease. 27
28
Director Ericson stated on June 21st and July 4th, the Planning Commission approved the CUP 29
but had issues with the questions regarding visibility. He stated that a neighboring property 30
owner did not have issues with the billboard as long as it was 45 feet high. Director Ericson 31
stated the Planning Commission did not approve the variance of 45 feet citing lack of hardship. 32
He added that Clear Channel has appealed the decision. 33
34
Director Ericson pointed out the table shown in the Staff Report regarding the requirements and 35
noted all are satisfied except for the height requirement. 36
37
Director Ericson stated the City is considering various criteria such as adverse effects and the 38
Planning Commission has done the first half of the work. 39
40
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission has considered the following criteria: 41
1.Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan; 42
2.The geographical area involved; 43
3.Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed, 44
4.The character of the surrounding area; and 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
5.The demonstrated need for such use. 1
2
Director Ericson stated the billboard has been deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 3
which does not support billboards. The area is commercial/industrial and there is not any 4
residential zoning in close proximity. He stated Staff did not feel the billboard would depreciate 5
the value of the land on which it is located, but there is a concern about depreciation of the 6
adjoining property. 7
8
Director Ericson noted Clear Channel has a demonstrated need for the parcel because it is 9
required to relocate four billboards and the Council has authorized a billboard for the indicated 10
location. 11
12
Director Ericson stated the proposed use would not cause a burden on the City. He stated the 13
billboard would be separated from residential properties and, therefore, would not have an 14
adverse effect. Director Ericson stated it is a well-traveled road. He stated that the after the 15
interpretation of the need and values of the City, the billboard has been deemed consistent with 16
the zoning code. He stated literally speaking, it is not conflicting with the Comprehensive Plan 17
and it would not affect traffic, necessary roads, or utilities. 18
19
Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission felt there are some visibility issues and 20
potential for obstruction that would be experienced by the adjoining property owner. He further 21
noted that the Planning Commission felt there are other locations on County Road 10 that are less 22
detrimental to the adjoining property. 23
24
Director Ericson stated property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified of the 25
public hearing. He explained that the City Council needs to consider the Planning Commission’s 26
recommendation and determine if the billboard is something that should be allowed. He stated 27
the variance will be discussed at the next meeting. 28
29
Director Ericson stated the draft resolution would deny the CUP based on the reasoning from the 30
Planning Commission. He stated the Council has so far determined the site is consistent where a 31
billboard could be located. He stated the site satisfies all issues except for the 45-foot variance, 32
which was denied by the Planning Commission. 33
34
Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. 35
36
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, asked Director Ericson if all requirements have been satisfied 37
except the question of a potential depreciation problem with the adjoining property. Director 38
Ericson responded that Mr. Hall provided a good summary for the basis of the Planning 39
Commission’s recommendation for denial. 40
41
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission is worried about the obstructions with the 42
adjoining properties and the proposed location was not the best location on County Road 10. He 43
answered Mr. Hall’s question stating all code requirement are met but the potential depreciation 44
is the basis for the Planning Commission’s denial. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
Mr. Hall asked if the depreciation was at 35 or 45 feet. Director Ericson responded the Planning 2
Commission felt there was an issue with obstruction at either height. He added that one member 3
of the Planning Commission voted against the variance recommending denial because they 4
believed the billboard may be better at 45 rather than 35 feet. 5
6
Mr. Hall asked when the Planning Commission discussed depreciation at 45 feet. He stated the 7
adjoining property owner is okay with the billboard at 45 feet. He appreciated the clarification 8
from Director Ericson. 9
10
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he was at the Planning Commission meeting and 11
there was not much confusion. He recalled that the Interim Use Permit (IUP) was denied and 12
there were two issues on the agenda, one dealing with the height limit. He stated IUP request 13
was denied and Acting Mayor Stigney concurred. 14
15
Mr. Glidden pointed out the Planning Commissioners are volunteer citizens and they made the 16
decision that the City has a limit of one billboard on County Road 10. He stated the discussion 17
centered around the issue and therefore, the decision was made to deny the proposed billboard 18
near the Mermaid. 19
20
Richard Sontaire, 3225 Spring Street NE, Minneapolis, thanked Mr. Glidden for his comments. 21
He stated Mr. Glidden’s comments are more accurate in terms of the Planning Commission’s 22
rationale for denial. He stated that there was considerable discussion regarding depreciation at 23
the June meeting. 24
25
Mr. Sontaire stated the Planning Commission’s concern arose because Mr. Coups (an adjoining 26
property owner) expressed uncertainty. Mr. Sontaire stated that upon receipt of a letter from Mr. 27
Copus in July, there was no further discussion at the Planning Commission regarding the 28
valuation of the property. 29
30
Mr. Sontaire noted the July Planning Commission discussion focused far more on personal 31
opinions about billboards. He stated there was hardly any discussion about the actual code. He 32
added that the location proposed for the billboard was chosen by the Council and the Planning 33
Commission discussed alternative locations. 34
35
Mr. Sontaire explained that the location the property owner determined for the billboard is 36
consistent with code. He added that at the July 5th Planning Commission meeting, no person 37
spoke at the podium regarding depreciation. He said that Director Ericson stated billboards on 38
County Road 10 will impact the residents of Mounds View. He noted that over 30,000 people 39
use the road and Ramsey County treats it as an arterial. He stated that a low percentage of the 40
vehicles passing the billboard will be Mounds View residents. 41
42
Acting Mayor Stigney closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. 43
44
Acting Mayor Stigney commented that Mr. Copus currently owns the property, but the CUP is 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
granted for 30 years. He noted the perpetual Wallgreens billboard. He added that there is the 1
potential for a detrimental effect to the property owner next to the Mermaid regardless of who 2
owns it. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Copus would be 5
brought in on the conversation much earlier. He stated his belief that the Council is trying to 6
meet Clear-Channel half-way if they approve the site. He explained that it was well-known that 7
the City would not allow the 45-foot billboard because the City has a precedent and stated that 8
was one of the factors he considered when he voted to approve the billboard on the Wallgreens 9
site. 10
11
Councilmember Flaherty asked what would happen if a vote was taken. Director Ericson stated 12
the Council could act tonight to deny the resolution or ask Staff to draft a new one. 13
14
Councilmember Flaherty stated as the resolution sits, he would support the denial based on the 15
height. Councilmember Thomas clarified that the Council is not discussing height. 16
17
Councilmember Flaherty stated as it sits, he would have to support the denial on the height. 18
Councilmember Thomas clarified that they are not discussing the height. Councilmember 19
Flaherty asked Mr. Sontaire if another site to the south could be considered. 20
21
Mr. Sontaire replied that he appreciates the concerns and that there have been extensive 22
conversations with Mr. Coups. He stated he does not make decisions regarding locations and the 23
proposed location has been deemed acceptable by Clear Channel. Regarding the height, Mr. 24
Sontaire stated at 35 feet, the billboard could be built without a variance. He stated the 25
application for the variance was made because it was determined at 45 feet, the billboard would 26
have less negative impact. 27
28
Mr. Hall stated that future use plans for the front corner of the property include a tall structure. 29
He apologized for not including Copus in the conversations earlier. He stated that Acting Mayor 30
Stigney made an excellent point about the property being old and suggested the billboard could 31
attract a new company. 32
33
Mr. Hall stated that there are future use plans for the front corner of the property, which would 34
include a tall structure. He apologized for not including Copus in the conversations earlier. He 35
stated that Acting Mayor Stigney made an excellent point about the property beings old and that 36
the billboard could attract a new company. Same as previous paragraph 37
38
Councilmember Thomas stated she watched the Planning Commission meeting and the problem 39
is how to separate the question facing the Council currently vs. future questions. She clarified 40
that the current question under consideration is whether or not the permit is up to code and 41
acceptable. She stated she believes it is a poor decision to deny the CUP based on other 42
discussion. She stated her belief that the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial was 43
not based on answering the current question, but was based on other issues entirely. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
Acting Mayor Stigney stated he agreed with the Planning Commission’s decision that the 1
billboard would affect the adjoining property in a detrimental way. He stated the property owner 2
is creating the hardship by not relocating the billboard. 3
4
Councilmember Gunn stated that, looking at the rendering of the billboard, it looks to her like at 5
either height, and the billboard would not obstruct the adjoining building. She stated she does 6
not see the total obstruction or depreciation that would take place. 7
8
Councilmember Gunn stated she agrees with Councilmember Thomas that the issue is that the 9
billboards have to be moved somewhere and the spot in question is one that the Council 10
determined was acceptable. She stated the Council had to work in a “good faith” initiative to 11
move the billboards. She stated the Council was not happy about the billboard on Highway 10, 12
but agreed the spot in question would be the least intrusive. She stated she does not support the 13
denial of the IUP. 14
15
Mayor Marty arrived at 7:44 p.m. and chaired the remainder of the meeting. 16
17
Councilmember Thomas stated, regarding the depreciation, that if Mr. Hall decided to plant a 18
tree, not a single person at the table would claim the neighboring property would be depreciated 19
because visibility was blocked. She added that to claim depreciation is caused by one thing or 20
another is a make-believe reason to justify not approving the billboard. She stated she does not 21
see any way the IUP violates code. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6875 24
denying an Interim Use Permit for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10. 25
26
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Thomas, Flaherty, Gunn) Motion failed. 27
28
Councilmember Thomas asked Staff to bring back a resolution for approval of the IUP and 29
addressing the height variance to the next meeting. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To direct staff to prepare a resolution approving 32
the Interim Use Permit for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 that addresses the height limit for 33
consideration at the next meeting. 34
35
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 36
37
B. 7:10 pm Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6876 Approving an 38
Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 5201 Program Avenue 39
40
Director Ericson stated this discussion is similar to the last one. He explained where the 41
billboard would be located and that it was one of the sites the City identified as a potential site 42
for a relocated billboard. 43
44
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission considered potential for adverse effects at the 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
location and did not identify any. He stated the Planning Commission considered a reduced 1
setback variance and explained that there is a storm water management pond at the northeast 2
corner of the property forcing the billboard to be set back 5 feet from the property line, which is 3
30 feet from the roadway. He stated the City Engineer Technician and Public Works Director 4
Lee did not anticipate a problem. 5
6
Director Ericson stated Staff recommends approval of the resolution and variance. The property 7
owners within 350 feet were notified and adjoining property owners have no problems with the 8
billboard. 9
10
Director Ericson stated the billboard would require a permit from MNDot and there is an 11
additional approval process beyond Mounds View’s City Council. He stated the resolution has 12
been provided for the Council’s review and the City Attorney suggested additional language be 13
added to the resolution indicating there is an easement in the location and that the City 14
acknowledges the easement and consents to the billboard’s location. 15
16
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. 17
18
Hearing no public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. 19
20
Councilmember Gunn requested that after sixth “whereas,” the words “requires that” be removed 21
and the additional language as under number 3 is added. Director Ericson suggested alternate 22
language “The City of Mounds View hereby consents to the sighting of the requested billboard 23
within the City’s utility and drainage easement for as long as the Interim Use Permit is in force 24
and so long as said billboard does not interfere with the City’s present or future use of the 25
easement area.” 26
27
Director Ericson stated there are a few additional concerns about trees and the heights. 28
29
Councilmember Flaherty asked for clarification regarding the impact of the Council approving 30
the letter about the removal of trees. Director Ericson stated there is a request to remove some 31
scrub trees in the MNDot right-of-way. He stated the City is being asked for a letter of consent 32
to the removal of the trees if MNDot approves the request. 33
34
Director Ericson stated the concern is that the trees will grow to a height that will interfere with 35
the billboard. He stated the City is recommending removal of the trees. 36
37
Mr. Sontaire stated the trees are mostly cottonwood and there are a few pine trees. He stated of 38
the trees, six are dead or dying and consistent with MNDot’s past practice, those will be 39
removed. He stated the trees were not planted by MNDot to serve as a screen. He stated there is 40
a very strong likelihood that the tree removal will be approved by MNDot and the request is 41
strengthened with support from the City. 42
43
Mayor Marty stated he supports a billboard in the area and removal of the trees. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6876 1
Approving an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 5201 Program Avenue as amended. 2
3
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4
5
Mayor Marty asked if a letter should be drafted and Director Ericson replied it would be. 6
7
The Council reached consensus that a letter supporting removal of the trees be drafted by staff. 8
9
C. 7:15 pm Public Hearing to Consider Second Reading and Adoption of 10
Ordinance 775 Vacating an Excess Highway Easement Associated with the 11
Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision. 12
13
Director Ericson stated this is the second reading of the ordinance that would vacate the highway 14
easement dedicated to the City in the 1960s. He stated the County rejected the plat for the 15
Hidden Hollow because the easement was there and it requires vacation. 16
17
Director Ericson stated there is no desire for a street in the location and it is the City’s 18
recommendation to vacate the area. He stated notices were sent to residents within 350 feet and 19
they are requesting a letter be sent with a summary of the ordinance. 20
21
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. 22
23
Hearing no public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. 24
25
Councilmember Thomas asked if it requires a roll call vote since it was a second reading. 26
Director Ericson stated it does require a roll call vote. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Ordinance 775 29
Vacating an Excess Highway Easement Associated with the Hidden Hollow South Major 30
Subdivision. 31
32
ROLL CALL VOTE: 33
MARTY – Aye 34
STIGNEY – Aye 35
GUNN – Aye 36
FLAHERTY – Aye 37
THOMAS – Aye 38
39
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 40
41
D. 7:20 pm Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6859 an Outdoor Liquor 42
Consumption Endorsement for Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds 43
View. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
Administrator Ulrich stated that this item is an application for new owners of the restaurant, 1
formerly known as Jakes, for an outdoor liquor sales and consumption permit after the change of 2
the ordinance effective June 4, 2006. Administrator Ulrich stated it is recommended this be 3
approved. 4
5
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. 6
7
Hearing no public input, Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated he thinks it would be a nice addition in the area. 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6859 an 12
Outdoor Liquor Consumption Endorsement for Moe’s located at 2400 Highway 10 in Mounds 13
View. 14
15
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 16
17
E. 7:25 pm Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of a Variance Denial for 18
2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage Space at 8135 Long Lake Road, 19
Resolution 6878. 20
21
Director Ericson stated that this item is an application for an appeal of a variance that was denied 22
by the Planning Commission. He stated the applicants have an existing home with an attached 23
garage and they are proposing an accessory building of 1,620 square feet, which would bring the 24
total accessory feet to 2,416 square feet, which is 668 square feet over the amount of square feet 25
allowed. 26
27
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission discussed the hardship criteria and whether or 28
not the code was causing hardship to the property owner of if the property owner himself was 29
causing the hardship. He stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the issues and 30
the building would be allowed if there were no other accessory buildings on the lot. He stated 31
that because there is an attached garage, the square footage is over the limit. He stated the 32
Planning Commission felt there was not sufficient information to grant the variance. He stated 33
Mr. Slabiak then submitted the denial appeal to the City Council. 34
35
Director Ericson stated the Council is bound by the same requirements as the Planning 36
Commission regarding the hardship. He stated the Council does have some ability to look 37
subjectively at the hardship criteria, but that both Staff and the Planning Commission agreed that 38
there was not sufficient hardship to grant the variance. He stated the City has not allowed a 39
variance over 1,800 square feet, which is a very generous amount. 40
41
Director Ericson stated the request is not typical and approval sets a precedent that is contrary to 42
the purposes of the code. He stated his recommendation is to deny the variance and noted that a 43
drafted resolution is available. He added that Staff notified residents within 350 feet of the 44
public hearing and the applicants are present to discuss their plans with the Council. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
1
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. 2
3
David Slabiak, 8135 Long Lake Road, asked if he can request more time than the three minutes 4
allowed for public comments. Mayor Marty stated the Council would allow him time to speak to 5
the issue. 6
7
Mr. Slabiak gave the Council a history of himself and his wife and presented someone to speak 8
on his behalf. He stated he has been a resident of Mounds View for eight years. He explained 9
he has been collecting pinball machines for 20 years and is requesting the building be approved 10
so he has a place to display and share his collection. He noted it would not be open to the public 11
and it is a similar situation to someone who enjoys woodworking. 12
13
Mr. Slabiak stated when he began plans to construct the building, he spoke with staff at City Hall 14
who informed him such buildings have been allowed. He stated he purchased his home with the 15
idea of building an accessory building. He stated Staff at the front desk gave him the impression 16
that such a request would likely be granted through a CUP. 17
18
Mr. Slabiak added that when he turned in the CUP, he was informed his proposed building was 19
too big. He stated that when he turned in the variance he was confused, was told he had done 20
everything right, and was under such an impression. 21
22
Michael Calusniak suggested Mr. Slabiak’s neighbors speak in support of the CUP for the 23
garage. 24
25
Jim Bower, 8121 Long Lake Road, stated he is Mr. Slabiak’s next door neighbor and is not 26
opposed to the building. He stated he believes it is a reasonable request. He added Mr. Slabiak 27
is an excellent, respectful neighbor. 28
29
Patty Berglean, 8132 Long Lake Road, stated she is also a neighbor of Mr. Slabiak. She stated 30
that to her knowledge, no person can see the backyard of the property. She added she has no 31
problem with the large building and that she does not mind the large pole building in the property 32
adjacent to her backyard. She stated that Mr. Slabiak keeps up his yard and there are many trees 33
that will cover the building if the permit is granted. 34
35
Jim and Sarah Train, 8145 Long Lake Road, who are neighbors north of the parcel in question, 36
stated they do not object to the proposed building. Mr. Train questioned how the City can have 37
an ordinance related to accessory storage space that does not take into account the size of the 38
property. He stated he has nearly half an acre of property and asked if the same restrictions that 39
apply to a property 1/8 the size of his apply to his property. 40
41
Mr. Calusniak stated there were a few items to be clarified from the June 6th Planning 42
Commission meeting. He stated Mr. Slabiak feels he did not receive a fair review of the facts 43
when he was in front of the Planning Commission. He noted that the property is 2.7 times the 44
minimum lot size required by the City and it is largely undeveloped. He added that the proposed 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
building will not take up a large amount of the land. 1
2
Mr. Calusniak stated Mr. Slabiak’s existing collection will require 1,500 additional square feet 3
and several options were considered, such as knocking down part of the garage or building a 2-4
story structure. He stated in both cases, the negative impacts were far greater than that of the 5
proposed building. He stated there is not a single negative impact except for the integrity of the 6
current zoning codes. 7
8
Mr. Calusniak stated the proposal is very reasonable and identified seven hardship criteria, 9
including the property owner’s right to use the property as they see fit. He stated such a hardship 10
has been held up in the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He stated the practical difficulties of 11
constructing a building that meets the CUP creates an undue hardship for the property owner and 12
the collection itself warrants such a building. He mentioned the lack of opposition from 13
neighbors and cited several instances in the past where hardship has been granted to several 14
applicants based on similar criteria. 15
16
Mr. Calusniak went through the exceptional circumstances as defined in the zoning ordinance, 17
which state that “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not 18
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.” 19
20
Mr. Calusniak stated that a lot 2.7 times the size of the minimum required is an exceptional 21
circumstance and the codes which are applicable to normal properties should be compromised for 22
such a large lot. He stated other compromises have been made for small lot sizes and he is 23
seeking uniform application of the codes. 24
25
Mr. Calusniak stated he has identified several other cases in which pre-existing conditions, such 26
as trees, have been considered. He brought up several cases the Planning Commission has 27
approved and that Mr. Slabiak is seeking a uniform application of the codes. He again stated he 28
fails to see direct negative impacts. 29
30
Mr. Calusniak stated he and Mr. Slabiak are not asking for revisions or changes to the 31
ordinances, but stated it is within the rights of the Council to grant variances. 32
33
Mr. Calusniak stated the proposal is not unreasonable, it is not inconsistent with the 34
neighborhood, and it does not create hardship for the neighbors. He stated Mr. Slabiak has 35
amassed a significant cultural asset, he is not collecting for profit, and the collection is an asset to 36
the City. He added that Mr. Slabiak is an excellent neighbor and resident. 37
38
Mr. Calusniak explained that the code is not compromised. He stated there are other issues 39
facing the area and it would be appropriate when considering this request to consider those other 40
issues. He also stated, regarding the hardship criteria, that he has a difficult time understanding a 41
clear precedent and applications approved by the Planning Commission in previous cases have 42
been approved under similar conditions. 43
44
Mr. Calusniak stated he does not believe Mr. Slabiak created the hardship. He reminded the 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
Council that Mr. Slabiak did not know he had to go through a variance process when he 1
purchased the property. 2
3
Councilmember Thomas asked the applicant how much square footage the collection currently 4
occupies. Mr. Slabiak presented the Council with a layout of his current collection. He stated 5
the collection currently resides in part of his garage, his lower level, a bedroom, and a storage 6
unit. He stated he does not currently have a display and it will not fit in his current square 7
footage. 8
9
Mr. Caulsniak and Mr. Slabiak explained the dimensions of the areas that are currently occupied 10
by his collection. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas stated she is looking for the difference in the space the collection 13
currently occupies versus the square footage for which Mr. Slabiak is asking. Mr. Slabiak 14
responded he would like to clear out some family areas for his expanding family. He added the 15
property owner behind him approves of the building. 16
17
Councilmember Thomas stated there have been many changes with the allowed accessory 18
building space and all have been to increase allowed accessory storage. She stated the square 19
footage number was put in place to address large lots. She stated there was a significant 20
limitation in the past and the current allowance is much broader and is the most generous amount 21
allowed ever in the City. 22
23
Councilmember Thomas stated she is in favor of more storage space, but the hardship is of the 24
applicant’s creation. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas explained that the issue is a matter of the design of the building and she 27
does believe a variance is detrimental to the code. She stated the Council should not make a 28
determination based on lot size. She added that the Council takes variances very seriously and 29
she believes the applicant could make the building smaller to satisfy the code. She stated that if 30
the applicant wanted to add on to his house, it would be an entirely different issue. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated that many discussions have revolved around accessory building in the past 33
and Staff developed a generous accessory building ordinance. He stated he felt at the time that 34
1,800 square feet was large, but the ordinance has since decreased the amount of time spent 35
discussing such variances. 36
37
Mr. Slabiak explained that he had considered an addition to his house, but was under the 38
impression that he would be allowed to build the accessory building when he purchased his 39
home. He stated the costs are continually rising for the proposed building and building a home 40
addition would be even more expensive. He stated his wife would like to remove the collection 41
from the home. He also pointed out the building could be used in many different ways if he were 42
to sell the property. Mr. Slabiak stated that within his constraints, the proposed accessory 43
building is his only option. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
Mr. Calusniak commented that there have been cases in the past where applicants have had 1
similar circumstances that were not determined to have been created by the applicant. He stated 2
if the variance is not approved, he and Mr. Slabiak will have to consider other alternatives, 3
including a less-desirable two-story building. He also suggested the Council reexamine current 4
codes. 5
6
Councilmember Flaherty stated that Mr. Slabiak is, by all accounts, an excellent neighbor. He 7
stated the Council attempts to accommodate residents, but must also consider the codes. He 8
stated he would be okay with a smaller variance, but he is not okay with such a size request. He 9
added that the Planning Commission has never approved a variance over 1,800 feet. He stated it 10
puts the City in a difficult position because if such a large variance is granted, it could lead to 11
even larger variance requests. 12
13
Mr. Calusniak stated he understands the concerns of the Council and pointed out that other cities 14
have larger accessory building codes, which should also be considered. 15
16
Mr. Slabiak asked the Council to appreciate his situation and the difficulty he had obtaining the 17
correct information from City Hall when he first moved to his current property. He stated it 18
would be difficult to sell his home in this market and purchase another property where he could 19
have a large enough accessory square footage. 20
21
Councilmember Thomas stated that none of the parties at the table believes the property owner’s 22
knowledge of the situation before he purchased the home should be factored into the decision. 23
She stated the Council needs to limit the scope of the question before them and cannot address 24
the issue of making the accessory building square footage number larger, even if they wanted to. 25
26
Councilmember Thomas stated that the City should not consider other questions while answering 27
the one presented. She stated the City has a limit to accessory buildings and she believes the 28
applicant could come back with a 668 square foot smaller building that would work. 29
30
Mr. Calusniak noted that the pinball machines require a buffer zone and needs the extra 668 31
square feet. Councilmember Thomas stated she wants to see a demonstrated need for such a 32
large building, which she does not see with the proposed plan. 33
34
Councilmember Gunn stated she thought a good point was brought up regarding lot sizes when 35
variances are discussed. She explained that she has been following Planning Commission 36
discussions and part of the future of the City is to make its neighborhoods better looking. She 37
noted that there are pole buildings in back yards and that she finds such structures more 38
aesthetically unpleasing than the proposed building. She added there is no way the building will 39
be seen from the road and that the Council should take into consideration lot size when 40
approving or denying such requests. 41
42
Director Ericson stated one of the reasons the code was amended was to increase square footage 43
in recognition that there are larger lots, which can support larger accessory buildings. He stated 44
there has been some backlash from residents regarding accessory buildings. He explained he 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
does not believe increasing the square footage is necessarily the best option and the reason the 1
ratio for properties versus accessory storage was eliminated is because it was difficult for 2
residents to calculate. 3
4
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. 5
6
Councilmember Flaherty commended the presentation and stated he was not sure if it was 7
presented before the Planning Commission. He stated it is a tough call, but since it is such a 8
large overage, he cannot support the building. He asked the applicant to try and work out another 9
proposal that is more workable. 10
11
Councilmember Gunn asked if the 1,800 square feet is total storage space. She stated that the 12
existing garage is 868 square feet. Director Ericson stated with the current storage square 13
footage, the applicant could build about 900 additional feet without a variance. Councilmember 14
Gunn asked if the building size needs to be reduced to 950 square feet. Director Ericson replied 15
that it does. 16
17
Councilmember Thomas stated the only other option she sees is if the applicant can work with 18
someone regarding safety, which may be the way Mr. Slabiak can present the hardship to the 19
Council and Planning Commission. She stated there needs to be a more acute hardship in order 20
for the variance to be approved. She asked if the applicant could come back with plans for the 21
smallest safe structure. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with the Planning Commission and the City must 24
follow code. He stated it is not an issue to change the code at this point and he believes the City 25
must follow the code and deny the appeal. 26
27
Councilmember Gunn asked if the applicant could build a two-story building. Director Ericson 28
responded that there is a height limitation of 15 feet which often restricts two-story buildings. He 29
explained how height is measured and that it is theoretically possible that the applicant could 30
build a two-story building. 31
32
Mayor Marty stated that the use of the building does not change the code ordinance. He 33
explained that the Council has significantly increased the maximum allowed storage area and he 34
believes the amount may be too generous. He stated in the future, it may be readdressed, but at 35
present, the Council must follow code. 36
37
Mayor Marty stated he is a stickler for precedence and this decision would set precedence and 38
could result in an influx of large CUP requests. He stated the code could be discussed at a future 39
work session but at the present time, the City must follow the code as written. 40
41
Mayor Marty suggested a smaller variance request may be allowed closer scrutiny, but a proposal 42
that exceeds the maximum by 37% is too large. He added that he sees no demonstrated hardship. 43
44
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 1
6878, Denying the Appeal of a Variance Denial for 2,468 Square Feet of Accessory Storage 2
Space at 8135 Long Lake Road. 3
4
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5
6
F. 7:30 pm Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6879 Pertaining to a PUD 7
Amendment at 2442 County Road 10 to Add “Print Production and 8
Fabrication Shop” as a Permitted Use and to Add “Attached Accessory 9
Building” as a Permitted Accessory Use. 10
11
Director Ericson explained that this item is for a change in the PUD for the proposed property. 12
He stated that Landcor has a prospective tenant interested in leasing the entire building and to 13
accommodate the tenant, Landcor would like an accessory building. 14
15
Mayor Marty left the meeting at 9:04 p.m. 16
17
Director Ericson stated after the Planning Commission reviewed the PUD, he toured the area and 18
said that there is almost an industrial feel to the location. He stated there are many printers and 19
large-scale industrial plotters that would not normally be housed office. He stated that it is a 20
situation where the Planning Commission did not have the information regarding the property 21
and proposed tenant. 22
23
Director Ericson stated that in 2003, the PUD was allowed for the construction of the building. 24
He stated that when the Planning Commission reviewed the amendment for the addition of the 25
accessory building, it would be allowable considering it was made out of the same building 26
material. 27
28
Director Ericson stated it would take up some parking stalls, but the office building does have 29
enough stalls. He stated that the Planning Commission supports the accessory building, but it is 30
up to the Council to determine if a print production company is consistent with the 31
comprehensive plan. 32
33
Director Ericson stated that the Council specifically determined what they would like in the 34
location, a restaurant, but it did not go through. He added that the Council did grant the location 35
use as an office building, but must determine if a print production company is wanted in the 36
location. 37
38
Director Ericson stated Staff recommends approval. Staff has not received any feedback 39
regarding the property and at this point, it is up to the Council to determine what the City’s vision 40
is for the property. 41
42
Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. 43
44
Robert Fields, LandCor Construction, gave a brief background of the location. He stated that a 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
change in the PUD allowed an office building. He stated that a company made a deal that fell 1
through and the owners have been seeking a tenant who would utilize the building as an office 2
and have failed. He explained how the building would be used for the print production company. 3
He added it is very technical equipment and that the company would like to maintain the 4
professional feel of the building. 5
6
Mr. Fields stated the fundamental difference between Lets Get Graphic is that there are many 7
professionals employed as graphic designers using on-site computers. He stated that the owners 8
of the company are very excited to be in the community, will be purchasing the building from 9
LandCor, and will be part owners of the retail center. He explained part of the second floor of 10
the building will be leased to professionals. 11
12
Mayor Marty returned at 9:12 p.m. 13
14
Mr. Fields stated that they do not have any other potential tenants for the building. 15
16
Councilmember Flaherty explained that Let’s Get Graphic is not a typical printing firm. He 17
questioned how the company disposes of hazardous waste. 18
19
The owner of Let’s Get Graphic stated his company contracts with another company that 20
removes the hazardous waste which is stored in a sealed drum. He stated it is disposed of twice a 21
year and not much hazardous waste is produced. Councilmember Flaherty asked if there is 22
documentation of such removal and the owner replied that there is. 23
24
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. 25
26
Councilmember Gunn stated she is glad to have a potential occupant for the building and to see a 27
viable business that plans to be in Mounds View for a while to maintain the building. 28
29
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6879 30
Pertaining to a PUD Amendment at 2442 County Road 10 to Add “Print Production and 31
Fabrication Shop” as a Permitted Use and to Add “Attached Accessory Building” as a Permitted 32
Accessory Use. 33
34
Councilmember Thomas asked about the requirement that this is approved by the Rice Creek 35
Watershed District, and stated that as long as that question is handled, she is willing to vote for 36
the resolution. 37
38
Councilmember Stigney stated his opposing view that he believes the building is in the wrong 39
location for the printing company. He stated that when the developer first proposed the building, 40
it would be a medical building, which fell through. He added that it is unfortunate the developer 41
cannot lease the building, but that it is not the City’s problem. He stated he does not support a 42
change in the PUD or the accessory building. 43
44
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mayor Marty pointed out that there were no interested parties in the site for either the restaurant 1
or office uses. He stated the space is being wasted and the modification does not seem to be an 2
overly significant change to the PUD of the area. He stated with a viable business in the area, 3
across from the Senior Center, there will be no major impact from the change in the use of the 4
building. He stated that if the building was going to attract renters, it would have by this time, 5
and he believes the printing company is the best option. 6
7
Councilmember Thomas stated one of the benefits of the PUD is to allow the Council the 8
flexibility to adapt the area to what types of businesses it will attract. 9
10
Councilmember Flaherty asked how many people the company employees and the owner replied 11
they employ 21. 12
13
Mayor Marty stated he is encouraged that Let’s Get Graphic will be using the entire building. 14
15
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 16
17
G. Resolution 6858, Accepting the Salary Compensation Study. 18
19
Administrator Ulrich stated this completes the portion of the contract for the classification and 20
compensation study report. He stated the City HR Committee has worked with Laumeyer and 21
Associates and the firm has several recommendations. He stated all job descriptions have been 22
revised, which the Council approved. He added that the Council selected several comparison 23
cities. He stated that with the study and results, and with the presentation of the report, he 24
recommends the Council send the report back to the HR Committee to discuss the report and 25
make recommendations. 26
27
Jim Laumeyer, from Laumeyer and Associates, thanked the Council for the opportunity to 28
conduct the study. He stated after the presentation, his firm will go back to the HR Committee to 29
discuss the report. He stated that there were a small number of recommendations they will made. 30
He stated that he appreciates the level of support and involvement of the Personnel Committee 31
and Staff. 32
33
Mr. Laumeyer commented that Mounds View employees are extremely dedicated and hard 34
working. He explained the four areas with which the report deals: 35
1. FLSA: He stated this item, according to federal law, addresses whether employees are 36
classified as exempt or non-exempt. He stated there was only one employee with a 37
questionable classification. 38
2. Point system: He stated that one employee had considerable additional duties and that 39
half of the employees had minor changes. 40
3. Classifications: He stated that the report recommends nearly 60% of changes of 41
classifications. He said not to worry because the vast majority of the changes are to 42
bring Mounds View classification language up-to-date. He stated that one position 43
could be reclassified. 44
4. External Market: He stated the employment positions from ten cities were compared. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
The vast majority of the positions, 90%, are at or slightly above market rate. He stated 1
that Mounds View is very positive as far as the market is concerned and his 2
recommendations will have very few monetary effects. 3
4
Mr. Laumeyer stated the firm is asking for acceptance of the report. He stated after approval, the 5
firm would return to the Personnel Committee with specific recommendations and will then 6
suggest some pay equity. 7
8
Mayor Marty asked about the sources of external data and why Forest Lake was removed. Mr. 9
Lauymeyer stated that Forest Lake was included in error and the version handed out at the 10
meeting without Forest Lake is correct. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas asked about the assumption of whether or not the pay system is 13
appropriate. She stated she does not see it addressed in any of the material. Councilmember 14
Flaherty stated that pay was discussed and it was not included in the report. Councilmember 15
Thomas stated she would like the information. 16
17
Mr. Laumeyer noted that it was decided to defer such information to the Personnel Committee. 18
19
Councilmember Stigney asked about the title changes and the criteria on which they are based. 20
Mr. Laumeyer stated that one was because one employee needs a re-classification due to duties. 21
He stated that in the workforce, classifications are constantly updated. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney asked “who” is using such terms and where the new words come from. 24
Mr. Laumeyer said the words come from research and surveys done with other cities. He 25
suggested the titles changes would be more comparable to other positions with the same duties. 26
27
Councilmember Stigney asked about the Community Development Director and stated he did not 28
see any changes. Mr. Laumeyer replied that it was a typo. 29
30
Councilmember Stigney asked for documentation supporting the recommendations. Mr. 31
Laumeyer stated they would be available at the Personnel Committee meeting. 32
33
Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to make a motion indicating receipt, not 34
acceptance, of the report with referral to the HR Committee. Mayor Marty stated it would come 35
back to the Council for approval. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 38
6858, Indicating Receipt of the Salary Compensation Study and Referring it to the Human 39
Resource Committee. 40
41
Mayor Marty asked about Desaree Crane, and the language regarding the “Assistant To” title. He 42
stated he would like to keep the classification of “Assistant To the City Clerk/City 43
Administrator” title and that some of the duties should be taken on by Administrator Ulrich 44
rather than by the “Assistant To.” 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
1
Mr. Laumeyer stated that the current duties of the position were more “Assistant” rather than 2
“Assistant To” duties. He stated he is looking forward to discussion surrounding the issue with 3
the HR Committee. 4
5
Councilmember Thomas stated she does not agree with changing the title “demoting” the duty 6
level of a person who is performing the work at such an excellent level is the wrong move. 7
Administrator Ulrich stated he would like to survey other cities about the duties their “Assistant 8
Tos” and “Assistants” are performing. 9
10
Mayor Marty stated he brought it up because he believes it is possible that Assistant To the City 11
Administrator Crane’s plate is too full. 12
13
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 14
15
H. Resolution 6870 Approving Contract with Gov.Office to Provide Web 16
Hosting Services 17
18
Communications Coordinator Blackford stated that one of the goals of the Council is to improve 19
communications between the City and residents. 20
21
Coordinator Blackford outlined five reasons why the City should go with GovOffice: 22
1. Online completion of forms and applications 23
2. Online citizen polling: 24
3. Bulk e-mail feature which will allow citizens to choose which issues that interest them. 25
4. Search reports, which will allow reports to be run about what citizens are searching for on 26
the website 27
5. Automatic calendar: Coordinator Blackford gave an example about a job application that 28
would have to be removed when the closing date passed and explained that with the 29
GovOffice software, the posting would automatically be removed from the website. 30
31
Coordinator Blackford stated in March, 2005, Decision Resources conducted a poll that indicated 32
that 70% of Mounds View residents have access to the internet and over one-third of those 33
people have visited the City’s website. She stated that one-third of those people rate the website 34
as fair or poor. Coordinator Blackford explained that the interactive form will increase usability 35
of the website and that the instant results provided by the online poll will be valuable. 36
37
Coordinator Blackford stated that she received two bids, GovOffice and Civic Plus. She stated 38
her recommendation is GovOffice because it includes many features as standard that are not 39
included with Civic Plus. She also listed several people who have recommended GovOffice. 40
41
Coordinator Blackford provided information about the funds Mounds View gives to Roseville for 42
IT support. She stated it is a bulk fund that Mounds View pays each year and will have to be paid 43
whether or not the City purchases GovOffice. She stated there will be no additional charge for 44
web hosting with GovOffice. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
1
Coordinator Blackford explained that for the remainder of 2006, GovOffice will cost $2,780, and 2
each additional year will cost $1,170. She stated she is requesting $400 extra, included in the 3
$2,780 request, for a custom webpage. She stated that she is also requesting an additional $300 4
for set-up and $32.50 each month to cover the cost of the forms. Coordinator Blackford added 5
that Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. 6
7
Councilmember Stigney asked who directed Coordinator Blackford to get the bids. 8
Administrator Ulrich stated he directed her to do so. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney stated that Roseville currently provides support and questioned the 11
necessity of a change without any discussion when it will cost more to have a new website and 12
the City will continue to have to pay for Roseville’s services. 13
14
Councilmember Stigney asked about the administrative costs surrounding the maintenance of the 15
website. Coordinator Blackford stated that part of the yearly cost is web hosting, security, etc. 16
Finance Director Beer stated that Roseville is recommending that all cities switch to GovOffice, 17
particularly because of the security software included in the package. 18
19
Finance Director Beer stated that there will be more upfront costs, but the security systems in 20
GovOffice office will help screen those out. He stated that at some point, Roseville will ask 21
other cities to switch to GovOffice. 22
23
Councilmember Stigney stated that he would like Roseville to give the City a discount if they do 24
discontinue web hosting. He added that he would like a department to come forward with a 25
proposal to save, rather than spend the City’s money. 26
27
Councilmember Flaherty thanked Coordinator Blackford for being proactive. He stated that she 28
took one of the bigger goals of the Council, communication, and came up with an excellent 29
proposal. He suggested that he does not believe the Council has to make an immediate decision, 30
and that it should come up during budget sessions. 31
32
Councilmember Thomas stated that discussions and decision surrounding the issue have been put 33
off because the City has waited to hire a Communications Director. She stated this is exactly one 34
of the items on the list and one of the reasons for Coordinator Blackford’s hire. She stated that 35
the sooner the sub-par website can be improved, the better. 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty stated he has a hard time approving non-budget items. Councilmember 38
Thomas replied that non-budget items are approved for good reasons and it would have been 39
included in the budget had the City had a person to recommend it. 40
41
Councilmember Stigney stated that the deficiencies of the website were not brought up and 42
Coordinator Blackford was hired to relieve Director Ericson of the website maintenance duties. 43
He stated he believes she should work within the system to change the current website. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
Councilmember Thomas replied that the City has the handout with Roseville’s reply and it is a 1
separate issues. She stated that Roseville offers a web-hosting service and that Mounds View 2
still has the jurisdiction to make decisions regarding the layout and information on the website. 3
4
Councilmember Gunn read from the letter from Roseville. 5
6
Administrator Ulrich stated that as long as Mounds View is using Roseville as the internet 7
provider, the City is facing a large increase for IT services because of additional items Roseville 8
has taken on. He stated GovOffice allows Coordinator Blackford to be more efficient in the 9
maintenance of the website. He stated there will be savings with the IT contract and in the 10
administration of the website. He stated it is consistent with the Council’s goal of improving 11
communication. 12
13
Mayor Marty asked if switching to GovOffice could eliminate some of the cost increases of 14
Roseville. Administrator Ulrich stated that if all cities on Roseville’s server move over to 15
GovOffice, it will eventually reduce the cost. Councilmember Stigney stated he would like to 16
hold off until there are proven savings. 17
18
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated he has a lot of background in the area. He 19
explained there is standardization with the interactive pdf forms and open-document text is 20
standard for governments, but questioned its necessity. 21
22
Mr. Amundsen stated his other comment is about the joint powers agreements. He stated that 23
regardless of the intent of the agreement, the other entity still has the obligation to adhere to the 24
agreement. He stated that Roseville should have had an outsourcing merging agreement. He 25
stated that fewer services should result in a lower price regardless of what is recommended. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas stated that she anticipates a joint powers agreement revision. She said 28
it is Mounds View’s responsibility to provide the best service to residents and she does not 29
believe Roseville’s server allows that. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN to waive reading and adopt Resolution 6870 Approving 32
Contract with Gov.Office to Provide Web Hosting Services. 33
34
Councilmember Stigney commented that staff time may cost extra to use pdf forms, and if that is 35
not the way most offices are going, the City should determine how much administrating the 36
forms would cost. 37
38
Councilmember Thomas stated the City is not bowing out of agreements with the City of 39
Roseville and if action is taken, Mounds View will have leverage to negotiate with Roseville. 40
Councilmember Stigney disagreed. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated he does see pros and cons, and commended Administrator Ulrich and 43
Coordinator Blackford for their research regarding the issue. He stated that this is exactly what 44
the City was looking for to improve citizen information and communication. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
1
Mayor Marty stated he finds the online opinion polling very beneficial. He stated that online 2
completion of forms and applications is excellent, as well as easier navigation. He stated the 3
bulk e-mail feature is excellent and many departments are doing such things on their own. He 4
agreed that the automatic calendaring is an excellent idea. 5
6
Mayor Marty stated, however, that the City is in the preliminary budget process and he would 7
like to see this incorporated into the process and continue with Roseville for the present time. He 8
stated he would like to renegotiate the joint powers contract. He added that Roseville would like 9
to get out of the agreement and using GovOffice could be an excellent bargaining tool. 10
11
Mayor Marty stated that he would like to delay the decision two to three months. He stated he 12
would have liked to have known about the recommendation before a resolution was presented, 13
and suggested it could have been brought up as a work session item. 14
15
Mayor Marty stated he agrees with Councilmember Stigney that GovOffice could be a bargaining 16
tool to renegotiate the contract with Roseville. He stated that the City could look into it closer 17
rather than “jumping the gun” and approving it right away. He stated for budgetary reasons, the 18
resolution is a bit premature. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas added that whatever process is used, dealings with Roseville can be 21
accomplished even with GovOffice implemented. Councilmember Thomas stated the delay is 22
unacceptable and it will take time to get it up and running. She stated that putting GovOffice in 23
place now will allow the City the time to know what will be needed as far as budgetary concerns. 24
25
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he agrees with Councilmember Stigney, Mayor 26
Marty, and Mr. Amundsen. He stated he believes that the Council should not act upon the issue. 27
28
Mayor Marty stated he is not against the resolution, but thinks it is a bit premature to approve it 29
at the present time. 30
31
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Marty, Stigney, Flaherty) Motion failed. 32
33
Mayor Marty asked that this item be brought back for further discussion at a work session. 34
35
CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:00 p.m. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/MARTY to continue the City Council meeting until 10:45 p.m. 38
39
Ayes – 5 Nays –0 Motion carried. 40
41
I. Resolution 6884 Adopting the Recommendations of the Charter Commission 42
for a Charter Language Amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View 43
Charter and Authorizing a Ballot Referendum at the Next General Election 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
Administrator Ulrich stated that the Charter Commission is recommending that this item be 1
brought up as a ballot referendum. He stated this amendment deals with taxation limits on the 2
annual tax levy and certain fee increases. He stated the amendment also provides a process for 3
voter referendum approval if the City needs to go beyond the set limits. 4
5
Administrator Ulrich stated it clarifies, updates, and corrects language found in the section. He 6
stated City Attorney Riggs has requested time to review for state statutes and the 7
recommendation of Staff is to postpone action until July 25th to allow for further review. 8
9
Councilmember Stigney asked about the current resolution’s third “whereas” and said he does 10
not support Section 703. He stated he does not support the resolution and the Council should 11
discuss and vote on it. 12
13
Mayor Marty asked that Subdivision 2, Item C, about the four members of the Council, be 14
changed to indicate a majority is needed. He stated that the Council does the budget every year, 15
and asked what happens in a non-election year. 16
17
Mayor Marty asked if there was any recourse without any special election. Mr. Amundsen, who 18
is a member of the Charter Commission, stated that is correct. Mayor Marty asked that the 19
language of “next regular municipal election” be changed. Mr. Amundsen stated that there is 20
language addressing elections in the Charter. 21
22
Mayor Marty suggested that language should be added about a special election in off years. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas asked about timing and where the Charter will be if it is not acted upon 25
until July 24th. Mr. Amundsen stated that the Council is not approving the language, but 26
approving the forwarding of the Charter to the County once language is approved. He stated that 27
Council approval on July 24th to move the Charter along would work. He stated he spoke with 28
Administrator Ulrich about the issues the attorneys have and learned they want to check a few 29
points of the statute related to procedures that outlined acceptance. He stated the discussion is if 30
it will go on the ballot. 31
32
Councilmember Thomas stated her concern is regarding the timing that could be handled by the 33
Charter Commission, but the difficulty the Council has is that if the language is not approved on 34
July 24th, there will not be another Charter Commission meeting. She stated there is a time-35
crunch and the Council will have to meet between now and the next City Council meeting. 36
37
Mr. Amundsen stated that the City’s task is to move language to the County, not to approve 38
specific language. 39
40
Mayor Marty asked if City Attorney Riggs could make a recommendation based on a cursory 41
evaluation of the Charter Commission recommendations on July 11. Administrator Ulrich stated 42
City Attorney Riggs has had the Charter for a while and might have something available for the 43
July 11th meeting. He mentioned September 15th as the last date to submit ballot questions and 44
suggested the Council move back from that date. 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
1
Councilmember Thomas stated that they can call a special session and that it needs to be moved 2
upon. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney stated he does not agree with Mayor Marty’s suggestion to change it to a 5
majority. He also stated that he believes Subdivision 1 is too loose. 6
7
Mr. Amundsen explained that Councilmember Stigney is referring to the limits on tax levy 8
increase, which will be limited to the formula of lesser of a maximum 6% or the Consumer Price 9
Index + 3%. Councilmember Stigney stated he believes the numbers should be smaller. 10
11
Mayor Marty questioned what could go wrong, and that he did read provisions that the Charter 12
could go to a ballot referendum issue. 13
14
Mr. Amundsen recommended the public come in and request a book from the Council or Charter 15
Commission if they are interested in the Charter. He suggested citizens attend the Charter 16
Commission meetings. 17
18
Mayor Marty added that the Charter is adding language that tax levies cannot be increased more 19
than the previous years’ amount by the lesser of maximum of 6% or Consumer Price Index + 3%. 20
21
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the Charter has been gone through several times. He stated 22
that the first step is approving the resolution for an amendment. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated that the discussion must include any amendment changes and 25
language does have to be approved at some point. She stated this cannot be a final action 26
without approval of the language. She pointed out that any language will have to be approved by 27
the Charter Commission. 28
29
Mr. Amundsen stated that the Council cannot make recommendations to change language, the 30
Charter Commission does not have to accept language changes, but the Council has to approve 31
moving the language to the ballot. 32
33
MOTION/: FLAHERTY. To put this on the ballot, but not specify language. 34
35
Mayor Marty stated that the Council will re-introduce the resolution at the next meeting. Mayor 36
Marty stated that he withdraws his suggestion of the majority of members voting instead of 4-1. 37
He said he would like it to remain 4-1. 38
39
Councilmember Gunn asked what happens if Councilmembers are missing. Mayor Marty and 40
Councilmember Thomas replied that there is precedent set for when Councilmembers are gone. 41
42
Councilmember Flaherty WITHDREW HIS MOTION and suggested it be brought back on July 43
24. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 25
Councilmember Stigney asked that Mr. Amundsen relay his concerns about the “loose language” 1
to the Commission. 2
3
J. Resolution 6883 Setting an Interest Rate and Administrative Fee for Special 4
Assessments Certified during 2006 5
6
Finance Director Beer stated in the next few months they will be assessing for delinquent utility 7
and diseased tree removal. He stated that these must be designated. Finance Director Beer 8
explained that currently, the City is getting 5.5% interest and a fee of $25. He stated Staff 9
recommends raising the interest rates to 6% and raising the administrative fee to $30. 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6883 12
Setting an Interest Rate and Administrative Fee for Special Assessments Certified during 2006. 13
14
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 15
16
K. Resolution 6882 Consideration of Recommended Personnel Action with 17
respect to Thomas Baumgart 18
19
Police Chief Sommer stated that the resolution is for the termination of the employment of 20
Thomas Baumgart who has been a police officer of 12 years. He stated due to an on-duty injury, 21
he is unable to perform his duties. Police Chief Sommer stated the employee has been informed 22
and is aware of the action and this allows the Department to fill the position. 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6882 25
Consideration of Recommended Personnel Action with respect to Thomas Baumgart. 26
27
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
L. Approving Change Order No. 1 for the Random Park Building Replacement 30
Project 31
32
Administrator Ulrich stated that the final change order was brought to the Council previously 33
when it was discovered that a sprinkler system would have to be added to the building. He stated 34
Staff discussed requirements and that there were more quotes and designs discussed. The current 35
quote now saves the City a significant amount of money. 36
37
Administrator Ulrich stated that the quote will include a 1” service pipe to the building and a 38
valve that will allow for a smaller pipe. He stated the main blank in the contract was the cost of 39
the sprinkler, which has now been added with this change order. He stated the current contractor 40
will continue to work and the sprinkler company will be subcontracted through Jay Brothers. He 41
stated the 4” service would not be required. 42
43
Administrator Ulrich stated that Staff recommends going ahead with the project to allow the 44
project to continue. He stated that funding is consistent with the original funding proposal and 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 26
will come from park dedication and TIF funds. 1
2
Councilmember Flaherty stated he is very impressed with the savings proposed by Administrator 3
Ulrich. Mayor Marty stated he would like to thank the Fire Chief and Fire Inspector for being 4
open to allow the City to accommodate the revised system and still be up to code. He stated the 5
savings are significant. 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To approve Change Order No. 1 for the Random 8
Park Building Replacement Project. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney commended the savings. 11
12
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13
14
8. CONSENT AGENDA 15
16
Councilmember Thomas asked to remove Item F. Councilmember Gunn requested Item B be 17
pulled. Mayor Marty asked to remove item E for further discussion. 18
19
Director Ericson stated that Item I is incorrect, that it is Lot 5, Hidden Hollow. 20
21
A. Licenses for Approval 22
B. Resolution 6869, Authorization to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the 23
Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Safe and 24
Sober project 25
C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:05 pm for the First 26
Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 776 adopting the Five Year 27
Financial Plan. 28
D. Resolution 6872 Appointing Gerald Arel to the Parks and Recreation and 29
Forestry Commission 30
E. Resolution 6873 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Silver Lake Road 31
Sidewalk Improvement Project 32
F. Resolution 6874 Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, 33
Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to Assist the City with a Traffic Study of 34
the Northwest Area of the City 35
G. Resolution 6880 Approving a Contract for Weather Services for 2006-09 36
Winter Seasons. 37
H. Resolution 6877 Authorizing Wetland Map Creation and GIS Overlay 38
Preparation 39
I. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:10 pm to Consider a 40
Partial Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Associated with Lot 5, 41
Hidden Hollow 42
J. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:15 pm to Consider the 43
First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 774, an ordinance Amending 44
Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 27
Dog Kennels 1
K. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:20 pm to Consider the 2
Appeal of a Variance Denial for a 45 Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County 3
Road 10 4
L. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:25 p.m. to Consider a 5
Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road 6
7
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended. 8
9
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 10
11
B. Resolution 6869, Authorization to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the 12
Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Safe and 13
Sober project 14
15
Councilmember Gunn stated she would like to thank the Police Department for the Safe and 16
Sober Campaign. 17
18
Mayor Marty explained how the grant worked. 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 21
6869, Authorization to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public 22
Safety, Office of Traffic Safety Safe and Sober project. 23
24
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 25
26
E. Resolution 6873 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Silver Lake Road 27
Sidewalk Improvement Project 28
29
Mayor Marty pointed out that the low bid was _______ to _______ and that the engineers’ 30
estimates were $588,000. 31
32
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that five came in lower, two came in higher. He stated there 33
was a very good price for concrete and the contractor specialized in concrete sidewalks. He 34
stated that they checked references for the company and received excellent references. 35
36
Mayor Marty stated that the project is scheduled to begin on July 24 and will be completed in 37
October. 38
39
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6873 40
Awarding a Construction Contract for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project . 41
42
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 43
44
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 28
F. Resolution 6874 Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, 1
Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to Assist the City with a Traffic Study of 2
the Northwest Area of the City 3
4
Councilmember Thomas stated she pulled the item for notice and that it is an issue that should be 5
discussed. 6
7
Mayor Marty stated one of the reasons he wanted to pull the issue is because it is an estimated 8
cost of $43,000 and that he thinks the cost is high. He stated the traffic study does not require an 9
RFP, but he would like to put out an RFP. He stated he would like a study that comes in at 10
$20,000 or less and more money could be used for street repair. 11
12
Consulting Engineer Rhein responded that it was an expensive traffic study and the firm listened 13
to the State and concerns of citizens to review the goals of what the study will accomplish. 14
15
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that Staff gained an understanding of what it will take to 16
determine what the City and citizens want. He stated that a lot of the cost is data collection that 17
involves complex calculations and counts at an integrated level. He stated the City does not have 18
the equipment to do the counts and they would have to be subcontracted. 19
20
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated the counts themselves would be about $12,000. He stated the 21
City’s scope of services to do other data collection is about $31,000. He stated Public Works 22
Director Lee indicated that the scope of the study would continue to grow and the department 23
would be overrun with hourly work. 24
25
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that Staff put together a detailed list of tasks and identified ten 26
staff members who would be working the report. He stated that he wanted to ensure the 27
implications on state aid are considered. They put together a detailed task list with dollar 28
amounts and put together the study that would meet the needs. He stated this is a cap to what the 29
study will cost and that no more could be spent without Council approval. 30
31
Consulting Engineer Rhein explained how costs could be trimmed back throughout the study. 32
He stated that in Section 4.5B, Council could reduce the scope of the study. 33
34
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated the Council is welcome to bid for an RFP but he believes 15% 35
lower would be the “bare bones” that could answer the questions requested by the Council. He 36
stated that Director Lee would like to combine this study with the feasibility study. He stated the 37
scheduling on page 5 indicates an immediate start date with a draft study done in eight weeks, 38
which is an aggressive schedule. He noted that the report for the street and utility project could 39
be done by November 1st. 40
41
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated if there is an RFP, it will throw off the schedule drastically. 42
He stated that he did not include extra costs. He stated they included the number that gives the 43
City the level of detail needed to answer the questions. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 29
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated he understands the City’s concern for the RFP but is ready to 1
start the study immediately. 2
3
Mayor Marty stated he appreciated the report but questions if what was detailed in the report is 4
necessary. He asked that it be returned to Staff to look into 4B, reductions in scope, and if there 5
is any way it could be reduced to keep lower costs. He stated the traffic study is over $43,000, 6
which could be valuable in the long run, but he would rather put the money into the actual 7
improvement. 8
9
Mayor Marty stated he would like to send it back to Staff for discussion at a future meeting. 10
11
Councilmember Stigney stated he believes it is prohibitively expensive. He questioned why is 12
the study going up to County Road J when it is not part of the plan, and suggested it be held off 13
until MedTronic is finished. He stated that Mounds View owned traffic counters. Mayor Marty 14
stated they have not worked. Councilmember Stigney stated the City could buy new ones and 15
that the expenditure for the study should be reexamined. 16
17
Councilmember Gunn stated that the majority of the surveys indicated that this is the information 18
they wanted. She asked why the City is studying County Road J and Airport Road under number 19
3. 20
21
Consulting Engineer Rhein said the study area is larger than what is being considered for the 22
improvement project. He stated the proposal is to do 30 counts in the City streets and 23
intersection turning movement counts at northern and southern limits of the study area to 24
determine traffic coming into and out of the area. He stated they are specialized counts. 25
26
Consulting Engineer Rhein addressed Councilmember Gunn’s question about number 3, and 27
replied that the streets are included to determine what traffic is “cut-through” traffic versus traffic 28
that stays within the area. Councilmember Gunn said that is the information citizens have 29
requested. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated that there should be a follow-up in a few years to see if the road 32
improvement worked. 33
34
Councilmember Flaherty said that it is what citizens want, but they want it when MedTronic is 35
up and running. He stated the study is way more comprehensive than he imagined. 36
37
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated that there are tools to project how many trips will be generated 38
by MedTronic when the study is completed. He explained that citizens want to stop high speeds 39
and cut-through traffic before MedTronic is opened. He stated that analysis will help the City 40
anticipate problems and solve them before they are worse. 41
42
Councilmember Flaherty stated that cut-through traffic will not be stopped and speed is a law 43
enforcement issue. He stated he is not convinced about the benefits of the study. Consulting 44
Engineer Rhein stated that it will help the City determine what improvements can be made to 45
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 30
discourage traffic from local streets and intuitively find arteries such as Long Lake Road. 1
2
Consulting Engineer Rhein stated the goal is to determine four to six alternative improvements to 3
the street project. He stated that estimates could be included in the feasibility study. 4
5
Councilmember Thomas suggested the issue be moved to the next Council meeting. Mayor 6
Marty suggested Staff reexamine the issue and discuss it at the next meeting. 7
8
Councilmember Stigney asked if the City will look into buying or renting traffic counters. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY To postpone consideration of Resolution 6874 11
Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to 12
Assist the City with a Traffic Study of the Northwest Area of the City until the July 24, 2006 City 13
Council meeting. 14
15
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 16
17
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 18
19
Councilmember Flaherty asked about page 4, the Century Fence Company, and stated it seems 20
like a large amount. Finance Director Beer stated it is for repair work at one of the schools. 21
22
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the meter refund program. Finance Director Beer explained 23
that it is for people who move. 24
25
Councilmember Flaherty asked about a Crown Victorias on page 5 from Elk River Ford, and on 26
page 10, from Superior Ford. He asked if one was a replacement and one was a new. Police 27
Chief Sommer stated that was correct. 28
29
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as 30
Presented. 31
32
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33
34
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 35
36
A. June 12, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 37
38
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To Approve the June 12, 2006 City Council 39
meeting minutes as corrected. 40
41
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 42
43
B. June 26, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 44
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 31
1
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To Approve the June 26, 2006 City Council 2
meeting minutes as corrected. 3
4
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5
6
11. REPORTS 7
8
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 9
10
Mayor Marty stated that residents on Quincy Street commented about the trails and how nice 11
they are. He stated the resident would like to commend Public Works Staff and others who have 12
worked on the trails. 13
14
Mayor Marty publicly commended the Staff and citizens who have contributed to the clean trails. 15
16
B. Reports of Staff 17
18
Administrator Ulrich reported that Representative Bernardy will not be running for the House. 19
20
Administrator Ulrich announced that Director Lee is the proud father of a new baby girl. 21
22
1.) Report on 2345 County Road H2, Property Operated as Vino and Stogies 23
24
Director Ericson stated that the owners of Vino and Stogies are considering a major investment 25
in the property and are wondering if the City would be interested in purchasing the property. 26
27
The Council agreed that they are not interested in purchasing the property at this time. 28
29
Mayor Marty stated that realigning the intersection will require more than that property and the 30
Council will keep the information under consideration. 31
32
2.) Update on Premium Stop Property 33
34
Director Ericson stated that the City closed on the property on June 29th. He stated at the next 35
meeting there will be a resolution authorizing demolition and a market study of the project. 36
37
Finance Director Beer stated that he met with the City of Blaine regarding payment for fire bonds 38
and the City has been overpaying since 1991, which equals about $61,000. He stated the City is 39
currently working on a repayment plan. 40
41
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 17, 2006, at 7 p.m. 42
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 24, 2006, at 7 p.m. 43
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 32
1
13. ADJOURNMENT 2
3
The meeting was recessed to a closed session at 11:18 p.m. 4
5
Transcribed by: 6
7
Lauren McKay 8
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 9
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Executive Session
Date: 07/10/06
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
Time: 6:00 pm
1. 6:07pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Marty, Council Members Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney and Thomas. City
Administrator Kurt Ulrich, Police Chief Mike Sommer and City Attorney Robert
Alsop
3. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO TOM BAUMGART
The City Council and City Staff discussed allegations with respect to City
employee Tom Baumgart.
4. 6:30PM MEETING RECESSED UNTIL AFTER THE REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING
5. 11:23PM MEETING RECONVENED (absent Thomas, Sommer, and
Alsop)
6. DISCUSS UNION NEGOTIATIONS
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed and discussed the status of current union
contract negotiations with the Council.
7. 11:32PM MEETING ADJOURNED
Respectfully Submitted:
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator