HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2006/08/28
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, August 28, 2006
7:00 p.m.
(REVISED AS OF AUGUST 28, 2006 @930AM)
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. City Council Meeting Minutes, July 24, 2006.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05pm Public Hearing, Introduction, and First Reading of Ordinance 778, an Ordinance
Implementing a Franchise Fee on Xcel Energy Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the
City of Mounds View for the Year 2007.
B. 7:10pm Public Hearing, Introduction, and First Reading of Ordinance 779, an Ordinance
Implementing a Franchise Fee on Center Point Energy Natural Gas Operations within the City
of Mounds View for the Year 2007.
C. 7:15pm Public Hearing, Resolution 6906 Holding a Public Hearing, Approving the Feasibility
Report and Ordering the County Road 10 Trailway Project for Segments 9 &10
D. Status Report in regard to the Negotiation of a Interim Lease Agreement with Oops Dinner
Theatre in the Mounds View Community Center
E. Resolution 6921 Approving Ballot Language in Regard to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View
Charter
F. Resolution 6922 Approving the 2006-2007 AFCSME Union Contract
G. Resolution 6923 Step Increase for Heidi Heller, Mounds View Planning Associate and Peter
Berling, Mounds View Police Officer.
H. Appeal of charges associated with Summary Abatement at 5300-02 Raymond Avenue.
I. Resolution 6925 Authorizing an Abatement of Junk and Debris outside of 2318 Knoll Drive.
J. Resolution 6924 Approving the Final Plat for the Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road
K. Resolution 6927 Approving Authorization to Purchase Cable Equipment.
L. Resolution 6930 Authorizing the Preliminary Design of Landscape Architecture Elements for the
County Road 10 Trailway Corridor
M. Resolution 6931 Approving Change Order No. 35 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Licenses for Approval
B. Resolution 6926 Establishing a No Parking Zone on Spring Lake Road
C. Resolution 6920 Approving a Contract Award for the Repair Drainage Area W ithin Lambert
Park
City of Mounds View
City Council Agenda
August 28, 2006
Page 2
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Executive Session Minutes, August 14, 2006.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff
(1) Community Development Quarterly Report
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, September 5, 2006 at 7pm
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 11, 2006 at 7pm
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
July 24, 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, July 24, 2006 City Council Agenda 23
24
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To Approve the Monday, July 24, 2006 agenda 25
as presented. 26
27
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 28
29
5. PUBLIC INPUT 30
31
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated his question regards the agenda and the order of 32
Items D and E. He stated that Item D deals with a variance denial and Item E deals with the IUP 33
and asked why they were in that order. 34
35
Community Development Director Ericson suggested Items D and E be switched. 36
Councilmember Thomas pointed out that one of the items was a public hearing, and one was not. 37
38
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated his concerns regarding the proposed fitness center. 39
He said he does not understand why the City is willing to spend $500,000 on a fitness center 40
when there are several private fitness centers in the City. He stated the proposed fitness center 41
would not mean the building is being given back to the residents. He stated the Council should 42
consider it closely before approval. He stated he has not spoken to one other resident who is in 43
favor of the fitness center and believes that it will be a failing business. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mr. Jahnke brought up his belief that the City is getting into the real estate business. He stated 1
the house that was bought on the back of Simon’s has been losing taxes for 10 years. He stated 2
he would like to figure out how much the City has lost in taxes for the years the property has 3
been sitting there. 4
5
Mayor Marty replied that the City has owned the Groveland Road property for six years. He 6
stated the Community Center would cost closer to $750,000 since the cost estimate is nearly 7
$660,000 without architectural drawings. 8
9
Councilmember Flaherty asked for an update regarding the house behind Simon’s. Director 10
Ericson stated the EDA authorized demolition last year so there is no house currently on the 11
property and it is now green space. He stated at this point the property is in a holding pattern and 12
the Planning Commission has designated it for redevelopment. 13
14
William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, voiced his opposition to the fitness center. He stated he 15
does not believe residents will pay for the fitness center. He stated the City should not be making 16
a profit on the Community Center. He stated that over $6.2 million is tied up in the building. He 17
suggested the City sell the building and property. 18
19
Bob Glazer, 265 Hillview Road, asked about the water quality report that came out a few weeks 20
ago regarding contaminants. He asked about iron and manganese in the water supply, which are 21
major sources of contamination for households, were not included in the report and if they will 22
be reported upon. 23
24
Public Works Director Lee stated it is not in the report because it is not a contaminant but the 25
information is available because the City does track it. Director Lee stated the health department 26
has not required it be reported on so that is why it was not in the report. Mr. Glazer asked why it 27
wasn’t reported on, Director Lee explained it was not because it was not required by the 28
Department of Health. Director Lee explained the Department of Health does not consider it a 29
contaminant. 30
31
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 32
33
A. Resolution 6868 Accepting the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the 34
year ended December 31, 2005. 35
36
Finance Director Beer explained that Aaron Nelson, from the City’s auditors, Malloy, Montague, 37
Karnowski, Radosevich & Co will explain the report. 38
39
Mr. Nelson stated there are three reports regarding financial audit. He noted there was one report 40
from Staff and two from his firm. 41
42
Mr. Nelson stated on page one, there is an audit summary, which includes an “unqualified 43
opinion” on financial statements. He stated under government auditing standards, there were no 44
instances of non-compliance, but there was one issue involving internal controls. He stated 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
regarding the final opinion, they have reported two findings: timely payment of invoices and one 1
item regarding administrative penalties. He stated it is a follow-up consistent with last year’s 2
findings. 3
4
Mr. Nelson pointed out on page one, which includes the auditors’ comments, and that they found 5
the financial records to be in excellent condition. 6
7
Mr. Nelson stated the City submitted the report for Certificate of Excellence. 8
9
Mr. Nelson stated that there was a special item reported for the sale and closing of the golf 10
course. He stated there were two comments regarding investment broker acknowledgement 11
certificates, which are recommendations for the City for this year. He stated the last item in the 12
summary is a comment on internal control and cash receipts. 13
14
Mr. Nelson pointed out on pages three and four the graphs refer to the City’s market value and 15
tax capacity. He stated pages five and six deal with the Governmental Funds Overview. He 16
stated there was a comparison with statewide averages and the City continues to generate less 17
than average funds per-capita. He stated on page six, there is a table showing expenditures. He 18
stated that the City has below-average expenses when compared to other Cities. 19
20
Mr. Nelson pointed out on page seven that the general fund financial position since 1996 is 21
sh own. He stated the City has been able to provide a stable position for several years. He stated 22
the fund balance falls within the state auditor’s recommendation. 23
24
Mr. Nelson stated page eight explains the general fund revenue and that revenues came in better 25
than anticipated. He stated on the expenditures side, the City spent 1.3% less than was planned in 26
the budget. He stated the City has been spending responsibly. 27
28
Mr. Nelson noted the enterprise operations and positions of water and sewer funds. He stated it 29
has maintained a stable operating performance and is in a healthy operation performance. He 30
stressed the importance that the operations are maintaining and operating efficiently. He noted 31
the sewer fund has been steady and healthy as well. 32
33
He stated that Page 12 points out what the City has done since implementing the Gatsby 34 34
management plan. He stated that enterprise has shown an increase and this year’s ending balance 35
is about $8 million higher than last year’s ending balance. 36
37
Mr. Nelson explained that page 13 is a statement of activities entity wide. He stated that the 38
City’s governmental activities rely more on taxes more than the business-like activities, which 39
rely on program revenues. He stated GASB 40 was implemented this year and there will be a 40
change in the financial investments. Mr. Nelson stated there have been discussions of GASB 44 41
and 45 relating to the City’s investments. 42
43
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the spike in 1999 with the operation expenses related to the 1
water fund on page 10. Mayor Marty stated he does not recall why there was the spike. 2
Councilmember Flaherty pointed out it went from $700K to nearly $1 million. 3
4
Director Lee stated it was a water-meter change-out program. 5
6
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6868 7
Accepting the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2005. 8
9
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 10
11
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 12
13
A. 7:05 pm - Public Hearing to Consider the First Reading and Introduction of 14
Ordinance 776, an Ordinance adopting the Five Year Financial Plan. 15
16
Finance Director Beer stated at the last work session the 5-year financial plan was presented for 17
review and discussion. He recommended opening the public hearing. 18
19
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. 20
21
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, commented that it bothered him to hear that there is a shift 22
of the revenue source toward property taxes as reported in the budget report. He stated that even 23
if the shift is the same as what is happening in other Cities, the shift should concern residents. 24
25
Mayor Marty responded that it is due basically to the reduction and elimination of LGA, Local 26
Government Assistance. He stated the City used to receive close to $1 a year in LGA and when 27
that was cut there were the same expenses in the City. He stated in order to keep the City 28
running, they had to raise taxes. He stated the state property taxes were cut, but the City had to 29
raise taxes in order to keep the City running. He noted the shift from the State funding to City 30
funding. 31
32
Councilmember Thomas stated the point in the report was a shift to property taxes from the City 33
doing business. She stated the City has stopped doing business and that is the reason for the 34
shift. She stated the major reason was the sale of the Golf Course. 35
36
Mr. Glidden stated the City has very few other sources of income. He asked if there will be 37
increases or decreases to the assumptions about estimated market and assessed property value. 38
Finance Director Beer stated assessed values are not considered, but that there is a 3% levy 39
increase estimate. 40
41
Mr. Glidden asked about the overall increase in expenditures. Mayor Marty replied that the 42
Council’s goal is to have a 0% increase. Finance Director Beer stated that for 2007, he 43
calculated 0%, but for the subsequent years he factored 3%. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. 1
2
Councilmember Flaherty commented that the five-year plan is a good foundation but that it can 3
change year to year. He stated the important thing is that there is a 0% levy increase for 2007. 4
He added that the Council would maintain the 0% as long as possible and commended Finance 5
Director Beer for the plan. 6
7
Mayor Marty stated the City is creating a vision. He stated that some things in the plan can and 8
will change, but the City needs a plan as a foundation. He stated that it was a well-done report. 9
10
Councilmember Stigney asked about the ordinance that is before the Council and if 2006 is the 11
first year of adoption, or if it will be the first part of the five-year plan. Finance Director Beer 12
stated the wording is following other ordinances. He stated it is the 2006 version of the plan and 13
it includes additional years. 14
15
Councilmember Stigney stated the language is ambiguous. He stated he is not in favor of 3% 16
levy increase in subsequent years and he is in favor of using the Medtronic levy decrease until it 17
is gone. He stated that he believed TIF would be the funding source for maintenance of County 18
10. He noted bonding was indicated as a funding source in the report and questioned why City 19
bonds were included in the plan. Finance Director Beer responded that the report should read 20
TIF and not bonding. 21
22
Councilmember Stigney stated he couldn’t support the plan because he does not support the 23
expenditures of 2008-2011. Mayor Marty responded that it is the Council’s responsibility to 24
reassess the priorities and determine what is necessary in the City. He stated the report is a 25
framework based on the City’s needs. 26
27
Councilmember Stigney stated his problem is the list about what should be done. He stated 28
adopting the 5-year plan means that every project listed must be considered. 29
30
Mayor Marty stated the Council’s goal is to maintain a 0% levy increase for the following years, 31
not just 2007, with 0% as long as the Council can maintain the levy reduction fund. He stated it 32
is the Council’s responsibility to guard the levy reduction fund and only use it to keep the annual 33
levy at 0%. 34
35
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt the first reading of 36
Ordinance 776, an Ordinance adopting the Five Year Financial Plan. 37
38
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 39
40
B. 7:10 pm - Public Hearing, Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 777, 41
an Ordinance Approving a Partial Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation 42
Associated with Lot 5, Hidden Hollow, Requested by Dave Regal Builders. 43
44
Director Ericson stated this is one of the last remaining lots to be developed in the Hidden 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
Hollow neighborhood. He stated that when Dave Regal Construction purchased the lot, the 1
easement was in excess of what was originally determined to be dedicated. He state an 2
engineering firm provided an area that would be vacated that is consistent with the high level of 3
the storm water management pond. 4
5
Director Ericson stated he requested a review from Sunde Engineering and they confirmed the 6
easement is in excess and had no problems with the developer’s report. He stated he then sent 7
the report to Bonestroo, the City’s engineer, and they also confirmed that vacating the easement 8
would not cause detriment to the storm water management pond. 9
10
Director Ericson stated he is requesting the public hearing be opened through the next meeting so 11
all affected residents can be present. He stated there are a number of exhibits showing where the 12
lot site is and some submittal information from Regal Construction. 13
14
Director Ericson stated one of the plans shows the easement area to be vacated and pointed out 15
on the site map where it will be vacated. He stated it would be vacated consistent with the 16
engineers report and is asking that Rice Creek Watershed review the request. He added that 17
approval would be contingent on Rice Creek Watershed review and approval. 18
19
Director Ericson stated Staff is confident it could be vacated and there is no public purpose in 20
keeping the excess easement property. 21
22
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. 23
24
Dave Regal, Dave Regal Construction, stated the vacation is being requested because the home is 25
being built for a handicapped-accessible home. He stated when the lot was purchased, they were 26
not aware of the excess easement. 27
28
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, asked if it would cost the City any money to vacate the 29
property. Director Ericson stated it will not and the applicant is responsible for all costs. 30
31
The public hearing was continued until the next meeting. 32
33
Mayor Marty asked if the entire area shown on the lot is easement. Director Ericson stated that it 34
is. Mayor Marty asked for clarification about the area that will be vacated. Director Ericson 35
stated it is approximately 1500 square feet. 36
37
Councilmember Flaherty stated the consulting engineer stated that the vacation will not be 38
detrimental to the storm water management pond and asked for clarification about the Rice Creek 39
Watershed approval. Director Ericson clarified the approval and stated that the vacation will not 40
be detrimental to the storm water management pond. 41
42
Mayor Marty asked if the area has been graded. Director Ericson stated the area graded for 43
ponding was in excess and that the land will be graded back into the property. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
Councilmember Thomas asked if any back grading would be done because of the construction of 1
the walkout home. Director Ericson stated it would. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To continue the public hearing until August 14, 4
2006. 5
6
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To accept the first reading of a Partial Drainage and 9
Utility Easement Vacation Associated with Lot 5, Hidden Hollow, as requested by Dave Regal 10
Builders. 11
12
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13
14
C. 7:15 pm - Public Hearing to Consider the First Reading and Introduction of 15
Ordinance 774, an ordinance Amending Chapters 701 and 1106 of the 16
Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to Dog Kennels 17
18
Director Ericson stated this was brought to their attention last December and that the zoning code 19
should be amended so residents with three or four dogs do not have to go through the Planning 20
Commission and Council for a conditional use permit. 21
22
Director Ericson stated it is not a planning action to have three to four dogs. He stated the 23
Planning Commission recommended removing the C.U.P. requirement and having kennels and 24
multiple dogs covered under regular licensing. He stated that some language would be added 25
regarding persons charged with animal cruelty and a mechanism to revoke the license. 26
27
Director Ericson stated that requirements to obtain signatures remains the same. He stated this 28
change would not require people to go through a public hearing in order to have kennels. 29
30
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. 31
32
Mr. Glidden asked for a clarification between dog kennels for commercial purposes or dog 33
kennels for pets. He asked if the change would address regular kennels or commercial kennels. 34
35
Director Ericson responded the ordinance reflects changes to pet owners, not commercial kennel 36
operators. He stated it does not change the requirements for a commercial kennel and only 37
applies to residential properties and personal pets. 38
39
Mayor Marty read from the ordinance, clarifying that it will not apply to commercial kennels. He 40
stated that this ordinance would apply to residents who want to breed dogs who could not in the 41
past without a Conditional Use Permit. 42
43
Mr. Glidden asked the Council to consider what is a reasonable number of pets. Director Ericson 44
stated that in Mounds View, a residential property owner couldn’t have more than four dogs. He 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
stated puppies could be kept until six months of age. 1
2
Director Ericson stated there have been problems in the City regarding cats and there is no upper 3
threshold about the number of cats residents can own. 4
5
Mayor Marty stated he has had calls from property owners who rent property and some tenants 6
have excessive numbers of cats. He stated Mounds View has nothing in the code covering cats 7
and it should be considered at a future work session. 8
9
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and accept the first reading of 12
Ordinance 774, an ordinance Amending Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal 13
Code Pertaining to Dog Kennels. 14
15
Mayor Marty thanked Staff and the Planning Commission for addressing this ordinance. 16
17
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 18
19
D. 7:20 pm - Public Hearing to Consider the Appeal of a Variance Denial for a 20
45 Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 21
22
This item was considered following agenda item E. 23
24
E. Consideration of Resolution 6875 pertaining to an Interim Use Permit (IUP) 25
Application for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 26
27
Director Ericson explained that the Council has reviewed this item twice and it has been before 28
the Planning Commission. He stated the billboard will be at the Mermaid property and is 29
consistent with the ordinance the City adopted for the relocation agreement executed with Clear 30
Channel in 2005 for billboards that were on the golf course. 31
32
Director Ericson stated all requirements associated with the IUP have been met, with exception 33
of the height. He stated the Planning Commission denied the variance for the 45-foot height and 34
that code provides for a 35-foot billboard. He stated Clear Channel appealed the decision of the 35
Planning Commission for the variance. 36
37
Director Ericson explained the reasons for hearing the IUP first and variance appeal second. He 38
noted there are several resolutions attached with several options. 39
40
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission denied the IUP because they felt that the 41
location was not appropriate because of potential obstruction and property degradation issues. 42
He explained that the Council needs to determine whether or not there is a hardship when 43
considering the variance and the Planning Commission determined there was no hardship 44
justifying the variance. 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
1
Director Ericson explained that the Council needs to consider the criteria guiding an IUP, such as 2
adverse effects, impact on adjoining properties, and issues associated with appearance, such as 3
degradation or impact on the County Road 10 corridor. 4
5
Director Ericson stated Staff has concluded there is justification for denial. He stated based on 6
Planning Commission’s recommendation, there are recommendations denying the IUP and 7
variance. He stated that it is a subjective decision by the Council and there is a resolution that 8
approves both the IUP and variance. He stated there is also a resolution approving the IUP and 9
denying the variance. 10
11
Director Ericson stated there has been additional public feedback including a resident who 12
commented on the application. He stated there is a letter from Mr. Kopas, adjoining the property 13
owner, who does not oppose the billboard as long as it is at a height of 45 feet. He stated that 14
one member of the Planning Commission determined that if the IUP is approved, the variance 15
should be approved because there is an issue with visibility and obstruction. 16
17
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. 18
19
Mr. Glidden pointed out that at every meeting he has attended so far, all of the input about the 20
billboard has been negative. He stated he understands that there has been input in writing from 21
three residents requesting denial. He noted that he expressed his opposition at the last meeting 22
and that citizens are asking that the Council deny the IUP. 23
24
Mr. Glidden pointed out that the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the IUP and voted 4-1 25
opposing the variance. He stated the only reason for the 1 approving vote, was because if the 26
permit was approved, the height does matter. He stated that the one other business owner who 27
spoke was Mr. Kopas and he was initially in opposition to the billboard and is now only in favor 28
of it at 45 feet. 29
30
Dan Hall, 2200 County Road 10, pointed out that there was a town hall meeting and not one 31
person who was there brought up the issue of billboards. He stated it is clear that the citizens do 32
not have a problem with the billboard since there are not many residents speaking up in 33
opposition. 34
35
Mr. Hall addressed the impact on the County Road 10 corridor. He stated the Corridor has many 36
problems and that the half-full strip malls are much more negative than a billboard. He stated 37
there is high traffic at the proposed site and that is where a billboard belongs. He stated that he 38
believes that it is a problem when government interferes with private enterprise. 39
40
Mr. Hall pointed out the drug stores and their negative impact. He stated the empty buildings are 41
a larger problem. He noted that Councilmember Stigney stated there would be depreciation for 42
Mr. Kopas’ building but such an opinion is in opposition to Councilmember Stigney’s statement 43
that he would like to stay out of business. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
Mr. Hall stated that the billboard needs to be at a height of 45 feet so Mr. Kopas does not have 1
obstruction and Clear Channel can sell the billboard. He stated he would like the billboard to be 2
passed tonight at the 45-foot height. 3
4
Councilmember Stigney responded to Mr. Hall’s comment and that he does not believe the 5
billboard is positive. He stated the deprecation factor is not for Coups’ business, but it is a 6
depreciation factor for the entire City. 7
8
Isabelle Hanson, 2320 Lambert Ave., stated her opposition tot he billboard. She stated she 9
believes the billboard will degrade County Road 10. 10
11
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated his concerns are the reasons the Planning 12
Commission denied the IUP and variance. He stated the Council must consider the reasons 13
closely. He asked if any business can put up a billboard and if the cost of the billboards will be 14
Medtronic’s. 15
16
Gary Stevenson, 2870 Arden Avenue, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, 17
explained the vote to deny the variance. He stated the vote to deny was based primarily on the 18
fact that the Planning Commission does not want billboards on County Road 10. He stated the 19
vote was not to deny the billboard at the Mermaid, but to deny any locations along County Road 20
10. 21
22
Mr. Stevenson stated that if the Council decides to relocate the billboard to the Mermaid site 23
from the Medtronic site, the vote would be different had they just considered the variance. He 24
stated he believes the vote would have been to approve the 45-foot height had the council 25
determined the Mermaid site as the best. 26
27
Mr. Stevenson stated that the Planning Commission voted against the billboard because in years 28
past, the Planning Commission had limited any billboards on County Road 10 to the one at 29
Wallgreens. He stated that the Planning Commission decided against any billboards for future 30
developments. 31
32
Mr. Stevenson stated the Council has the right to override the Planning Commission because of 33
the agreement to relocate the billboards from Highway 10. He added that if the billboard must be 34
relocated to County Road 10, the Planning Commission has no opposition to the Mermaid site. 35
36
Rich Sonterre, 5060 Red Oak Drive, stated that speaking as a resident, he has a concern with the 37
Staff Report, which includes a portion of an e-mail not included in any other Staff Report. He 38
stated that his objection is because there is no name and address included in the e-mail. 39
40
Mr. Sonterre stated that anyone or any group could inundate the City with anonymous e-mails of 41
one opinion or another and that there are no checks or balances that ensure one person is not 42
expressing their opinion more than once. He stated that he believes all input must include a 43
name or address. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
Mayor Marty stated it is his policy to not respond to those who do not leave names or addresses. 1
Director Ericson stated that after the receipt of e-mail, he responded to the resident indicating a 2
name and address would be required. Director Ericson stated the resident did respond with a 3
name and address, which was not included in the Staff Report. He added that Staff struggles 4
with anonymous information. Mr. Sonterre responded that even though it is on file, it should not 5
be included in the Staff Report. 6
7
Rich Sonterre, 3525 Spring Street Minneapolis, of Clear Channel Outdoor, stated this is an 8
ongoing process by which two parties entered into an agreement and he hopes this hearing 9
tonight is close to an end. He thanked Chair Stevenson for commenting. He stated that Chair 10
Stevenson’s comments are significantly different than the reasons the Planning Commission 11
denied the IUP and variance. He stated he would like to work to find a remedy for the situation 12
and he has other challenges, including a lease agreement with the City for another location. 13
14
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. 15
16
Councilmember Flaherty commented that the City is engaged with an agreement and contract 17
with Clear Channel to relocate the billboards and the City has asked to renegotiate the contract. 18
He stated the City should feel an obligation about the contract. He stated the revised contract 19
states the City would re-design its codes to relocate the signs. He stated he agrees with the 20
relocation. 21
22
Councilmember Flaherty noted the second issue is with the height of the billboard. He said he is 23
okay with the IUP, but not okay with the variance. He stated he believes the Council has done 24
their due diligence with Clear Channel regarding plans for the relocation. 25
26
Mr. Sonterre responded that he would rather have a 20 foot billboard and they rarely build a 27
higher billboard. He stated the request for the variance is to achieve two objectives: to gain 28
height over Mr. Hall’s sign so the westbound face is clear, and at the request of Mr. Kopas that 29
the sign not to obstruct his building’s signs. 30
31
Mr. Sonterre explained that building the billboard at 45 feet costs more and depreciates the sign, 32
but noted that at 35 feet, he will not build the sign. He stated that if the variance were not 33
approved, financial compensation from the City would be the better option. He stated that the 34
request for the billboard to be built at 45 feet is not to be a dominant structure. 35
36
Councilmember Stigney asked the face size of the billboard. Mr. Sonterre responded it would be 37
14 feet high and 48 feet wide. Councilmember Stigney asked why the billboard would be larger 38
than what is in front of Walgreens. He stated the billboard at Walgreens is because of a perpetual 39
lease. He stated that Clear Channel agreed to put flowers and a base. He stated that is the only 40
reason the Planning Commission approved it. 41
42
Councilmember Stigney stated that detriment and hardship with Mr. Hall’s property is of his own 43
doing. Mr. Hall replied that the only problem is with Mr. Kopas’ sign. He stated his problem is 44
not that the billboard will block his property and he does not care the height at which the 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
billboard is being built. Councilmember Stigney asked if Mr. Hall is requesting the variance. 1
2
Mr. Sontaire noted that the billboard he is proposing is the same size as the one at Walgreens. 3
4
Mr. Jahnke asked if approving this billboard would open the door to other billboards. Director 5
Ericson stated that the ordinance the City adopted in May provides for very specific relocation 6
places for billboards. He stated there is a cap and replace limitation and that the City cannot 7
exceed the number of billboards currently in the City. 8
9
Director Ericson explained that approving the IUP does not open the door to any additional 10
billboards and if one is approved, there cannot be any more built on County Road 10 because the 11
ordinance requires significant spacing between billboards. 12
13
Councilmember Gunn stated she agrees with Councilmember Flaherty that she will approve the 14
site, but not the height variance. She stated she does not want billboards on County Road 10, but 15
this is within an area that was approved. She stated she would not agree with the variance 16
because what she can see from the diagram presented with the Staff Report, the 35-foot billboard 17
will not block Mr. Kopas’ business. She stated she does not see the need for the 45-foot 18
variance. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas stated her difficulty is that the discussion turns to whether or not the 21
Council wants a billboard on County Road 10. She stated that the discussion has been had and 22
this site was determined as one that is acceptable for a billboard. She stated that she appreciated 23
Stevenson’s comments. 24
25
Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council disagreed with the Planning Commission’s 26
denial since the Council agreed that the site proposed is acceptable. She stated the Council is 27
here to decide about whether or not to overturn the vote, not what personal beliefs of billboards 28
are. She stated that the Planning Commission went beyond the scope of the question before 29
them. 30
31
Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with the Planning Commission’s decision and he will 32
do everything he can to stop billboards on County Road 10. He stated County Road 10 should be 33
the last option. He said the City should negotiate with Medtronic for billboards on their site. He 34
stated the height is immaterial because he will not vote for either the IUP or variance. 35
36
Mayor Marty agreed with Councilmember Stigney that he does not want a billboard on County 37
Road 10. He stated that the City is trying to make County Road 10 more of a “boulevard” rather 38
than a highway or pass-through area. He stated that hopefully by the fall there would be the first 39
lighted trailway between Silver Lake Road and Long Lake Road. He mentioned where other 40
trailways have been installed. He mentioned money set aside from other businesses for the 41
trailway and other businesses will be asked for their contributions. 42
43
Mayor Marty noted the code states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met, and in 44
this case, not all criteria are met. 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
1
Mayor Marty explained that the ordinance was discussed and that the Council decided explicitly 2
to limit height. He stated he does not feel billboards belong on County Road 10 and the 3
Council decided if a billboard would be approved at the site, it would be limited to 35 feet. 4
5
Mayor Marty expressed his concern about the precedent that would be set if a 45-foot billboard 6
was allowed. He stated he is concerned about allowing a variance from the code without a 7
hardship and the implications on other City ordinances and with other billboards. 8
9
Councilmember Thomas expressed her favor of Option B, approving the IUP but denying the 10
variance. 11
12
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6875 13
pertaining to an Interim Use Permit (IUP) Application for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10. 14
15
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Stigney, Marty) Motion carried. 16
17
F. 7:20 pm - Public Hearing to Consider the Appeal of a Variance Denial for a 18
45 Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopting Resolution 6893, 21
denying Appeal of a Variance Denial for a 45 Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County Road 10. 22
23
G. 7:25 pm – Public Hearing and Consideration of a consideration of a 24
Preliminary Plat for a Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road; Planning 25
Case MA2006-002 26
27
Planning Associate Heller explained that the property is just over 1.5 acres and the property 28
owner has submitted a request to divide it into three lots. She stated that the current home would 29
be demolished. She stated that the current zoning will support the subdivision and the proposed 30
lots will each be one-half acre. 31
32
Planning Associate Heller stated it is consistent with zoning and the Comprehensive Plan, and 33
the Staff reports the watershed district will be contacted. She stated that easement has been 34
dedicated in the preliminary plat and Long Lake Road is large enough to handle the additional 35
traffic. 36
37
Planning Associate Heller explained that there will be park dedication requirements and Staff 38
recommends it be based on two-thirds the land value. She stated that sewer and water are 39
accessible. 40
41
Planning Associate Heller indicated that much of the lot is tree-covered. She stated one resident 42
to the rear of the property was concerned about the number of trees being cleared. She noted that 43
the developer indicated he would clear only trees necessary for the homes. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
Planning Associate Heller stated that because of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan, the 1
watershed would be contacted. She stated that the City forester stated there are a few trees that 2
are worth saving and that the applicant has taken that into consideration. 3
4
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. 5
6
Councilmember Stigney asked if the setbacks will be adequate with the current home. Planning 7
Associate Heller replied that the current home will be demolished and the new homes will meet 8
the required setbacks. 9
10
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:53 p.m. 11
12
Mayor Marty asked Planning Associate Heller about the R-1, Single Family, Detached Garage 13
zoning, and also asked about attached garages. Planning Associate stated that she assumes they 14
will build attached garages. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and accept Resolution 17
6888, a Preliminary Plat for a Major Subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road. 18
19
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 20
21
H. Resolution 6884, Considering an Amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds 22
View City Charter as Proposed by the Mounds View Charter Commission 23
and Directing Staff to Prepare Language to be Placed on the Ballot for a 24
Vote of the Qualified Voters at the Next General Election Pursuant to the 25
Requirements of Minnesota Statute 4110.12. 26
27
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated that during the past several years, the Mounds 28
View Charter Commission has been reviewing the lists of past requests for housekeeping and 29
clarification updates to the sections of the Mounds View Charter that have caused confusion or 30
seem to be semantically incorrect. She said that a number of these changes have been processed 31
by ordinance by the City Council. 32
33
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated that if changes are deemed to be more 34
substantive in nature, the Charter Commission may recommend that these amendments be put on 35
a ballot referendum. 36
37
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that the Mounds View Charter Commission 38
has requested that the City Council prepare the following charter language amendment for a 39
ballot and have it placed before the voters at the next general election. She stated the amendment 40
is dealing with Section 7.03 of the Charter in regard to the City’s system of taxation. She 41
explained the concepts that are proposed were discussed at the joint Council/Charter 42
Commission Work Session held earlier this year and reviewed by the Council on July 10, 2006, 43
and referred to the City Attorney for review and comment. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated that the City Attorney has provided his 1
comments to the Charter Commission and will meet with them to discuss the language 2
amendment to Chapter 7. She explained that attached are the attorney’s comments on the 3
proposed change to the Charter. 4
5
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated the Charter Commission has requested the 6
Council’s response within 30 days on any questions or clarification to any item as presented in 7
the modification of language. 8
9
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane stated that the City Attorney has indicated that while 10
the Council shall fix the form of the ballot question, the Charter Commission has the authority to 11
have the question on the ballot. 12
13
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that the upcoming General Election would 14
obviously be the most cost-effective election to address this ballot question. She explained that a 15
special election, if it were necessary, would cost approximately $10,000. She state to make the 16
general election deadline, the question must be certified to the County by September 15th. She 17
stated that Staff recommends final action on the question be taken by the Council no later than 18
the August 28th regular meeting. 19
20
Councilmember Flaherty asked about the changes in language from the City Attorney. He asked 21
if the recommendations City Attorney Riggs made do not change the content or intent of 22
changing the Charter. Riggs stated that is correct. 23
24
City Attorney Riggs explained that he met with the Charter Commission last Thursday and the 25
Commission made a number of revisions and at the end of the meeting they agreed to the 26
language. 27
28
Councilmember Gunn stated she did not understand language in Subdivision Two B, which reads 29
“hold a public hearing upon at least 10 days posted and published notice in the City’s official 30
publication.” Councilmember Thomas stated it is not necessarily the normal grammatical. 31
Councilmember Gunn asked if it means notice must be given 10 days in advance. 32
33
Mr. Jonathan Thomas, 8040 Groveland Road, Chair of the Charter Commission, pointed out that 34
Mr. Riggs made the changes. Mr. Thomas stated that if the Council wants to direct Staff to make 35
changes, it is within the Council’s scope. He stated that the public hearing will be held, will be 36
posted 10-days prior, and will be published in the standard way the Charter has determined. He 37
stated the language is difficult and he believes that the intent has been captured, but it may be 38
able to be said more clearly. 39
40
Councilmember Gunn stated her problem is with the word “upon.” City Attorney Riggs stated 41
that there was no time frame for notice and that was the goal of the added language. 42
43
Councilmember Thomas clarified that the intent is to follow the ordinance procedure, but not 44
requiring other things that are required with ordinances. She stated this is not an ordinance, but 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
they are trying to make it follow the process for ordinances. 1
2
Councilmember Flaherty stated that he agrees with Councilmember Gunn that the language is 3
difficult to understand. Mr. Thomas stated that in the recommendation of it being a ballot 4
question, it can be included in the request that Staff clarify. 5
6
Councilmember Gunn asked about the City newsletter and how it will be published 10 days 7
ahead when there are only 6 newsletters published. Councilmember Stigney suggested the 8
language of “city newsletter when feasible, or the City website.” 9
10
Mr. Thomas stated Councilmember Stigney’s recommendation is well within the intent of the 11
language. He stated the listing of the additional items is to encourage the use, but the City 12
newsletter is the required use. Mr. Thomas stated it is reasonable to request Staff take a careful 13
consideration of the paragraph when drafting the final draft. 14
15
Councilmember Stigney asked about the formulas in Subdivision 1, which states the rate shall 16
not exceed the lesser of the following formulas. He asked about the inflationary index and asked 17
if the word “formulas” should be removed. Mr. Thomas stated there are two formulas, the lesser 18
of 5%, or CPI plus 2%. 19
20
Councilmember Thomas stated that there are two formulas, and any time a percentage is being 21
figured, it is a formula. She stated it is either a percentage of the budget, or the CPI plus a 22
percentage. Councilmember Stigney suggested the language “CPI plus 2% or a cap of 5%” be 23
used. 24
25
Mr. Thomas stated that if there is a better way for the langue to make sense, the Charter 26
Commission is not opposed to it. He stated the overall attempt is to put together a very carefully 27
planned restriction so the Council cannot implement a greater amount without taking it to the 28
voters. 29
30
Mayor Marty stated his concern is that the CPI was 10%, would the limit will be crippling to the 31
City in inflationary times. He stated a special election would cost the City a fair amount. He 32
stated if the City needs more than 5%, it would cost a significant amount to approve. 33
34
Mr. Thomas stated the Charter Commission agrees with the sentiment, but if the City finds itself 35
in the position of needing more money, the Council needs to take it to the voters with a special 36
election. He stated they reviewed with Finance Director Beer the last 10 years and next 5 years, 37
and the 5% would have worked in the past and will work in the future. He stated if times are that 38
tough, he believes the voters must be involved. 39
40
Mr. Thomas explained that, not counting the cuts in LGA, the numbers would all have worked 41
and they would not have had to go to the voters for any of the budgets. He stated they 42
considered both historical and projected needs, and designed the Charter to meet the City’s needs 43
even in times of hardship. He stated he believes they have come up with a workable solution 44
with reasonable limits. 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
1
Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with Mr. Thomas and believes the restrictions are too 2
loose. He stated it is not the Council’s duty to discuss the “meat” of the Charter, but to debate 3
language. He stated there would be more money coming in from Medtronic in the future. He 4
agreed with the ballot option and that the Charter puts a reasonable cap on the City’s ability to 5
spend money. 6
7
Mayor Marty commended the Charter Commission for addressing and incorporating all of the 8
Council’s concerns. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6884, 11
Considering an Amendment to Chapter 7 of the Mounds View City Charter as Proposed by the 12
Mounds View Charter Commission and Directing Staff to Prepare Language to be Placed on the 13
Ballot for a Vote of the Qualified Voters at the Next General Election Pursuant to the 14
Requirements of Minnesota Statute 4110.12. 15
16
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 17
18
I. Resolution 6889 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Medtronic Utility 19
Extension Project 20
21
Director Lee stated on July 13, the City received bids for the City Utility extension project. He 22
stated the main concern is about how the sanitary sewer will be brought under Highway 10. 23
24
Director Lee explained how the bids were made with two different alternatives, the first utilizing 25
an existing casing for the sanitary sewer, and Alternate two, which is for crossing Judicial Ditch 26
Number One to get the sanitary sewer on the east side of the ditch where Medtronic has 27
submitted approved plans to construct their sanitary sewer line 28
29
Director Lee stated the low bid was submitted by Dave Perkins Contracting, which was 30
$444,509, about $100,000 lower than the Engineer’s projection. He stated that bid alternate 31
number one would be an increase and it is the recommendation to go with alternate number two. 32
33
Director Lee stated it is recommended the City approve the base bid for Dave Perkins without 34
alternates number one or two. 35
36
Councilmember Flaherty asked for a brief explanation about the issues. Director Lee stated there 37
is a developer’s agreement with Medtronic that the City would provide the extension. He stated 38
the cost would be reimbursed by the developer. 39
40
Councilmember Thomas asked if there would be any disruption to traffic and Director Lee 41
responded it would not cause any disruption. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6889 44
Awarding a Construction Contract for the Medtronic Utility Extension Project. 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
1
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 2
3
J. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 778, an Ordinance Rezoning 4
the Properties Located at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the Back Half 5
of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3, Medium Density Residential, in Support of 6
Integra Homes Request. 7
8
Director Ericson explained that this item has been before the Council and Planning Commission 9
several times. He reminded the City of the discussion and of the planned development for the 10
area. He stated the plan is within the Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed-use, but that the 11
Planning Commission had issues with what should be the use for this area. 12
13
Director Ericson stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the preliminary 14
plat. He noted that the developer considered the Planning Commission and residents’ comments 15
and brought forward a new plan that took into consideration the comments and concerns. 16
17
Director Ericson stated that this is a simple re-zoning, not a preliminary plat. He stated the 18
Planning Commission still has questions about whether this is the correct development for the 19
area and concerns with the density. 20
21
Director Ericson explained that the proposal is for 19 owner-occupied townhome units. He 22
stated the developer submitted an elevation with proposed units. He stated they would be 23
designed with decks on the back and concrete drives. He stated it is a nice development if 24
townhomes are determined to be the best use. 25
26
Director Ericson noted some of the feedback involved privacy issues, highest and best use for the 27
area, and that many adjacent residents felt that the property should be office or retail. Director 28
Ericson stated the mixed-use comprehensive plan provides for some flexibility, but that it is up to 29
the City to determine what is the best use for the property. He stated there was not a clear 30
distinction about what the best land use should be for the property. 31
32
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission recommended that the City deny the re-zoning 33
because the townhomes did not adhere with what they believe should be in this area. He stated 34
that during the work session, two of three Councilmembers indicated that they like the 35
townhomes. He stated there are two options for action: approve or deny the re-zoning. 36
37
Director Ericson stated that the ordinance could be given a first reading and Staff could hold off 38
the second reading so the Council could go through the preliminary planning, and then approve 39
or deny the development. 40
41
Director Ericson stated Staff recommends giving first reading, but wait for the second reading to 42
allow Integra to submit a major subdivision and plan. He noted that this is not a published public 43
hearing, but there are residents who have comments and feedback. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
Director Ericson stated that residents are concerned about traffic, fire safety, and whether the 1
homes are the best use of the property given the potential for a Vikings stadium. He mentioned 2
another consideration is if the City wants to break up the seven acre plot. He said the Planning 3
Commission suggested the City undertake a marketing analysis and feasibility study to determine 4
highest and best use for the property. He stated the Planning Commission is asking for an 5
authorization for a market study for the area. 6
7
Duane Waldoch, 2935 County Road 10, stated he is surprised the issue came up at the Council 8
and that he was not notified. He stated he is not against townhomes, but is against how the 9
townhomes will be put in the property. He stated that the PUD was set up to put something 10
together at that point. 11
12
Mr. Waldoch stated townhomes would demolish the process of the PUD that was going through. 13
He stated that Mounds View has a beautiful corridor set up for future development, and that a 14
residential development is not proper for County Road 10. He stated the re-zoning will not 15
benefit the City of Mounds View. He stated there should be more studies done before buildings 16
are built. He stated that he believes County Road 10 will be desirable in the near future and 17
townhomes are not the best use. 18
19
Mark Schnoor, 2949 Highway 10, stated he agrees with Mr. Waldoch. He stated that at one time, 20
it was discussed that County Road 10 access for he and Waldoch would be cut. He stated 19 21
more families on County Road 10 is a safety factor. 22
23
Brian Bourassa, MFRA Engineering representing Integra Homes, stated that after the initial 24
Planning Commission denial he spoke with Staff and residents, and the homes were oriented 25
differently and significant landscaping was added. 26
27
Mr. Bourassa stated they reduced the density of the townhomes and that 19 units does not reach 28
the maximum of medium (R-3) density. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan states that this 29
area is defined as mixed-use. He stated that his plan is designed to link the area with the other 30
parcels. He stated there was some discussions about whether the linkages would increase traffic 31
on Groveland and that his plan is to keep some access point. 32
33
Mr. Bourassa stated Integra Homes has researched the viability for a commercial or office real 34
estate and neither use was determined to be viable. He stated that Integra believes the 35
townhomes will provide an excellent development along County Road 10. He stated he believes 36
townhomes are the highest and best use for the parcel. 37
38
Mr. Jahnke agreed with Mr. Waldoch that County Road 10 should not have residential units right 39
on the highway. 40
41
Councilmember Stigney stated that Mr. Bourassa pointed out the problems with making the 42
parcel commercial, and that there are limited access points. He stated a business would increase 43
traffic more than the townhomes would. He stated that Integra owns the property and they do not 44
have the option of the PUD. Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees with the re-zoning. 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
1
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/GUNN. To waive the reading and accept first reading and 2
Introduction of Ordinance 778, an Ordinance Rezoning the Properties Located at 2901 and 2925 3
County Road 10 and the Back Half of 8060 Groveland Road to R-3, Medium Density 4
Residential, in Support of Integra Homes Request. 5
6
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the area is already zoned for a business, and asked “if not 7
townhomes, then what.” He brought up the example of a gas station or liquor store and asked 8
what the residents would prefer. He stated that he does not believe a commercial business will 9
increase the property value of the homes in the area as much as townhomes. He stated he would 10
like to see if there is a workable solution with more feedback. He stated he is stuck because he 11
does not know what else residents would like. 12
13
Councilmember Gunn stated it comes down to the people who own the property and that they can 14
develop it they way they see fit. She stated the property owners could sell the land to a less 15
desirable entity. 16
17
Mr. Waldoch restated his concern. 18
19
Director Ericson stated the properties have a designated zoning, and tomorrow the land could be 20
developed as long as the zoning was consistent. He stated that any business could go in that area 21
that is consistent with the zoning of the property. He stated that the property can be developed, 22
as it sits presently, with its business zoning. 23
24
Councilmember Thomas stated she understands the request. She stated it is almost an arbitrary 25
decision, but at some point, the Council will make the call about the best use of the property. She 26
stated that the Council needs to make the decision if townhomes are the best use of the property. 27
She stated at some point, the discussions will continue until the Council makes a decision. She 28
stated that the Council either needs to make a decision, or request a market study to determine 29
the best use. 30
31
Mayor Marty stated his concern is that residents have not been notified. Director Ericson 32
explained that he has made every effort to notify residents of what is going on. Mayor Marty 33
stated that the property owners he spoke to expressed a desire to keep the 7 acres as one unit in 34
the PUD. He stated that the property owners outside of the proposed project would be willing to 35
sell. 36
37
Mayor Marty voiced his concern that taking the property out of the middle makes it unfeasible to 38
develop the 7 acres as one unit. Mayor Marty stated he would not like to see the property broken 39
up in the middle. Mayor Marty stated that Economic Development Coordinator Backman gave 40
the City a “heads up” about an assisted-living home. 41
42
Mayor Marty stated the proposed townhomes would increase the market value of the property to 43
$4.7 million and an assisted living facility, which Mounds View does not have, would have a 44
market value of $6-7 million for 40 units in one building. He suggested the Council consider 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
such a development before making a decision. 1
2
Mayor Marty stated he would like to determine what the City wants and needs in the area with a 3
market feasibility study as recommended by the Planning Commission. He suggested the 4
Council consider the assisted living facility before making a decision. He stated he is not 5
convinced that the townhome development is the best use for the property. 6
7
Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council has discussed Staff’s recommendation to 8
postpone the second reading of the ordinance. Director Ericson stated that the Council could 9
move to wait for the second reading for an allotted period of time. 10
11
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Motion carried. 12
13
Mr. Bourassa asked if the delay for the second reading is customary. Director Ericson stated the 14
suggestion to wait for the second reading is to provide the City with leverage to ensure that the 15
applicant submits a plan consistent with the City’s vision for the area. He stated there will be a 16
good faith effort to work together moving forward with the re-zoning. 17
18
Coordinator Backman stated that for the purposes of the developer, there should be assurance of 19
action. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn stated that six months is awfully long to wait. Director Ericson stated that 22
as soon as the Council receives the site plan and major subdivision application there will be the 23
second reading, with a six month time limit. 24
25
Councilmember Flaherty exited the Council meeting at 10:00 p.m. 26
27
CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:00 p.m. 28
29
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To continue the City Council meeting until 10:45 30
p.m. 31
32
Ayes - -- 4 Nays - --0 Motion carried. 33
34
K. Resolution 6890 Approving Change Order No. 2 for the Random Park 35
Building Replacement Project. 36
37
Director Lee explained that the first Change Order was for a soils correction. He stated that the 38
soils correction would have had to be done regardless of moving the old building or building a 39
new building. He stated the second issue is mold abatement that needs to be done. He stated that 40
they removed siding and sheeting that was affected by the mold in regulation with the 41
Department of Health. 42
43
Mayor Marty asked the cause of the mold, Director Lee stated it was due to an irrigation system. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6890 1
Approving Change Order No. 2 for the Random Park Building Replacement Project. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney stated he does not agree with the expense. 4
5
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 6
7
L. Resolution 6874 Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, 8
Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to Assist the City with a Traffic Study of 9
the Northwest Area of the City. 10
11
Director Lee reported this issue was brought up at July 10th and at that time the estimated cost 12
was $43,420, which was not approved. Director Lee presented the Council with a revised 13
proposal with a reduced cost estimate of $28,850. 14
15
Director Lee explained the changes. He suggested reducing project meetings from four to two 16
under Task One, and to reduce Bonestroo personnel from three to two. He explained that under 17
Task Three, it has been suggested to delete the orientation and destination study for Groveland 18
and Eastwood Drive. He suggested the City reduce number of site visits, reduce alternates from 19
six to three, and for Task 10 and 11, reduce the number of meetings. He stated the Council could 20
hold a work session/neighborhood meeting, and have Staff vs. Consultants present the final 21
report. 22
23
Councilmember Flaherty returned at 10:05 p.m. 24
25
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, asked who requested the traffic study. He stated traffic has 26
not changed too much and suggested the traffic study be done when Medtronic is finished. He 27
stated he does not understand why it would be done now and believes it should be done when 28
Medtronic is finished. 29
30
Mayor Marty stated the study is more involved. He stated that he would rather run traffic 31
counters across the streets and then determine traffic after Medtronic is finished. Mr. Jahnke 32
agreed. 33
34
Councilmember Gunn stated that residents requested the traffic count. She asked if the purpose 35
of the study is to determine what is going on regarding traffic in the City, and asked what the City 36
will do with the numbers once they get them. 37
38
Director Lee addressed the Medtronic question and stated there was a traffic study done as part of 39
the Medtronic development. He stated that those projected numbers would be incorporated into 40
the proposed traffic study. He stated that waiting would cost more money to do changes to 41
certain areas so that the roads are done before Medtronic is in. He stated the study would 42
determine what needed to be done as far as Medtronic is concerned. 43
44
Mayor Marty stated that if there are large projected numbers, the firm would identify streets 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
needing traffic calming measures. He stated the residents have requested the traffic study. He 1
suggested simple traffic counts could be sufficient and asked that such traffic counts be 2
incorporated into the plan. 3
4
Director Lee stated one of the activities in the study will determine what types of counts could be 5
done on certain roads. Mayor Marty asked if the City could contract with the firm to determine 6
what kinds of counts can and should be done. Mayor Marty reiterated his concern about the cost 7
of the study. He asked if BRAA could determine the least amount that needs to be done. 8
9
Councilmember Gunn asked if the study would give a false count with County Road J blocked 10
off. Director Lee stated that there is a factor that MNDOT uses for construction traffic that will 11
be incorporate into the BRAA study. 12
13
Councilmember Gunn asked about the intent of the study. Director Lee stated it is to determine 14
what can be done in the northwest area with street design and traffic calming, and what the 15
effects on other roads will be with the other options. He stated the intent is to determine what 16
options they have and the impact of various street redevelopment. 17
18
Mayor Marty pointed out that previous traffic studies did not take into account City streets, they 19
just measured arterials. Director Lee stated there is data regarding zip codes so that the firm will 20
know what kind of traffic will be coming through Mounds View. 21
22
Councilmember Flaherty stated that several problems were identified and addressed. He stated 23
that he does understand the benefit of the Study. 24
25
Mayor Marty asked who supports traffic counters. Councilmember Stigney stated the City has 26
the traffic counters and suggested the counters be used. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and deny Resolution 6874 29
Approving a Letter Agreement with the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates to 30
Assist the City with a Traffic Study of the Northwest Area of the City. 31
32
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33
34
Mayor Marty asked if traffic counters could be used. 35
36
Director Lee asked for some latitude from the City to work with BRAA about what the City can 37
do regarding some traffic counts, but not studies. Councilmember Thomas asked the letter of 38
agreement be limited. 39
40
M. Resolution 6892 Approving the Selection of Oops Dinner Theatre as a 41
Mounds View Community Center tenant and Authorizing staff to prepare an 42
Interim Lease Agreement. 43
44
Coordinator Backman stated that the Council would be licensing space for a dinner theater. He 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
stated that the dinner theater is looking to relocate after an issue with their space in Roseville. 1
2
Coordinator Backman stated the applicants toured the Community Center and determined it 3
would be an acceptable space for their theater. He stated it provides excellent visibility and 4
accessibility for their guests. 5
6
Coordinator Backman stated there is a proposal for a short-term lease of seven months to allow 7
the theater to finish their summer series and holiday show. He stated it would allow the City a 8
profit-generating use with low risk. He stated the agreement would allow for renegotiation of the 9
contract for a potential long-term lease. 10
11
Coordinator Backman stated that from a revenue standpoint, about 8,000 tickets will be sold, and 12
the revenue to the City in the next seven months is $34,000, on an annualized basis, it will be 13
$45,000 to $48,000. 14
15
Coordinator Backman stated that Staff recommends approval of the Oops Dinner Theater and 16
instructions to Staff to prepare a lease agreement. He stated there will be another time where the 17
Council will review the lease agreement. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6892 20
Approving the Selection of Oops Dinner Theatre as a Mounds View Community Center tenant 21
and Authorizing Staff to prepare an Interim Lease Agreement. 22
23
Councilmember Flaherty asked if alcohol would be involved with the dinner theater. 24
Coordinator Backman replied it would and explained the caterer who is interested in working 25
with the theater group. 26
27
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the lease offers the City additional time to reconsider the 28
fitness center plans at the Community Center. He asked Oops Dinner Theater about the 6.8% of 29
tickets sales that will be given to the City. Coordinator Backman replied there are some 30
discounts on certain types of tickets, such as senior citizens, youth, and large groups. He stated 31
that the discounts represent less than 20% of the tickets sold, which may reduce the net revenues 32
by the City about 2-3%. Councilmember Flaherty replied he would like more than the 6.8% 33
ticket revenue as a rental fee. 34
35
Mary Kay Fangel, of Oops Dinner Theater, explained that in addition to the 6.8%, Oops will pay 36
$1000 base rental every month. She stated they are hoping to give a discount to Mounds View 37
residents. 38
39
Councilmember Stigney stated that he would like to have access to the income statements from 40
Oops after the interim lease. Coordinator Backman replied that the theater is willing to provide 41
detailed records. Ms. Fangel replied that they would provide all financial documents to the City. 42
She stated that the caterer will be receiving the funds from the liquor and food sales will handle 43
the appropriate licensing and permits. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 25
Councilmember Stigney stated that the community Center makes profit off of liquor sales and 1
suggested Oops Theater take that into consideration. 2
3
Councilmember Stigney asked about the language “lessee may consider an additional base rate” 4
in the lease and suggested some language be moved. Coordinator Backman stated it is a rough 5
draft and he will revise and improve the lease. 6
7
Councilmember Thomas stated that the main goal of the Community Center task force is to make 8
the space available to the residents. She stated that she would like to ensure that a banquet center 9
and facilities are open to residents. She stated that some revenue coming in on a temporary basis 10
is positive, but the City needs to determine what they want for the space long-term. 11
12
Councilmember Thomas stated that she is not convinced that the dinner theater is a long-term 13
solution. She explained that the dinner theater will not serve the entire community and she 14
would like the banquet center to be open to the public. She stated every time a proposal is 15
introduced in which the building will make money, it reduces its capacity to serve the residents. 16
17
Councilmember Stigney stated that the fitness center would not produce revenue. He stated that 18
the Oops Theater will give the City time to discuss the Community Center, which may or may 19
not include the theater. 20
21
Councilmember Gunn stated concern about the Oops Theater’s schedule because there is a 22
significant amount of time that the Community Center will be unavailable. She noted her 23
concern that the banquet facility will not be available for residents. She mentioned the banquet 24
facility and senior room will be occupied. She stated that she understands the need to bring in 25
added revenue to keep the Center going. 26
27
Marta McIntyre, manager of the Community Center, commented on the use of the Event Center. 28
She stated that allowing Oops Theater limits programming in the Community Center that will be 29
offered to residents. 30
31
Mayor Marty commented that people are being turned away from the Community Center due to 32
scheduling. Ms. McIntyre stated that the rooms requested by Oops Theater are the only ones that 33
will house over 15 people. She added that three wedding requests are being held off until after 34
the Council’s decision. 35
36
Mayor Marty stated he does not believe Oops Theater is consistent with the key findings for the 37
Community Center. He stated his belief that Oops Theater would alienate Mounds View 38
citizens. He stated that Mounds View residents often use other Cities’ facilities because they 39
cannot afford to use Mounds View’s. He stated the new Community Center Coordinator should 40
work with the YMCA for a marketing plan. 41
42
Ms. Fangel stated that November, December, and January are peak times for their shows, and 43
they are hoping to schedule for the needs during those times, but are willing to be flexible with 44
the facility use. She stated that there are breaks between the shows and they are not looking to 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 26
monopolize the space. She stated the main reason for using the multipurpose C room is for 1
rehearsals. She stated that weekends are their peak times and they are hoping to use those dates 2
regularly. 3
4
Councilmember Flaherty asked how important Multipurpose Room C is to McIntyre and the 5
Community Center. She responded that it is the main room used for their programming. She 6
stated it is being used 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She added that the Multipurpose Room would be 7
unavailable during performances as well. 8
9
City Attorney Riggs suggested no decision should be made on the resolution and that Staff 10
should come back with a lease at the next meeting. 11
12
Councilmembers Stigney and Flaherty WITHDREW their motion to approve Resolution 6892 13
Approving the Selection of Oops Dinner Theatre as a Mounds View Community Center tenant 14
and Authorizing Staff to prepare an Interim Lease Agreement. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/FLAHERTY. To Direct Staff to prepare a Lease Agreement 17
with Oops Dinner Theater and bring it back to the Council for approval. 18
19
Councilmember Flaherty asked that Oops Theater and the Community Center Staff work together 20
regarding scheduling. 21
22
Councilmember Gunn asked about the weddings. Mr. McIntyre replied there is one in 23
September, one in April, and one in June. Councilmember Gunn asked if they should go ahead 24
and book the weddings. Councilmember Flaherty stated the only one in conflict would be 25
September. Mayor Marty stated that he would approve the weddings. 26
27
Councilmember Thomas asked for an answer regarding weddings. She stated that the Council 28
needs to make the decision. 29
30
Councilmember Stigney stated that he would like to go back to the original option approving the 31
six-month lease with Oops. 32
33
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Motion carried. 34
35
CONTINUATION OF MEETING 10:50 p.m. 36
37
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To continue the City Council meeting until 11:10 38
p.m. 39
40
Ayes – 5 Nays –0 Motion carried. 41
42
Mr. Jahnke stated he attended the Airport Commission meeting and approved a runway. He 43
stated the noise counts are up and there is a consideration of a motel and restaurant in the corner 44
near the airport. 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 27
1
Councilmember Thomas asked about the noise count from Mounds View residents. Mr. Jahnke 2
stated he would supply the Council with the count. 3
4
8. CONSENT AGENDA 5
6
Councilmember Stigney asked to remove Item A. 7
8
A. Resolution 6881 Removal of Propane Tank/Filling Station 9
B. Licenses for Approval 10
C. Resolution 6887 Approving the 2006 Festival in the Park Agreement 11
D. Resolution 6885 Approval to hire a Police Officer to Fill the Current Opening 12
on the Police Department 13
E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, August 14, 2006, at 7:05 p.m. Consider a 14
Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2932 Wooddale Drive. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/STIGNEY. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended. 17
18
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 19
20
A. Resolution 6881 Removal of Propane Tank/Filling Station 21
22
Councilmember Stigney asked if the current station runs on electricity. Public Works Supervisor 23
Pittman stated it is a natural gas-run motor and originally had a five-gallon propane tank that was 24
there for emergencies. He stated that there is one vehicle left on it, but they are replacing a 1,000-25
gallon tank to back it up in case of emergency. He stated they have never had to use it. 26
27
Councilmember Stigney asked the costs to run it off of electric. Public Works Supervisor Pittman 28
stated it has been considered, and due to emergency situations, the natural gas may be the way to 29
go for back-up. 30
31
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6881, 32
Removal of Propane Tank/Filling Station. 33
34
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 37
38
Councilmember Flaherty asked Finance Director Beer to comment about cell phones. Finance 39
Director Beer stated that the City has reduced monthly phone bill by $250 by changing their plan 40
with Nextel. 41
42
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as 43
presented. 44
45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 28
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 1
2
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3
4
A. June 26, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes 5
B. July 10, 2006 Regular Session 6
C. July 10, 2006 Executive Session 7
8
The Council agreed to add the minute corrections and approvals to the next Council meeting 9
agenda as a special order of business. 10
11
11. REPORTS 12
13
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 14
15
Mayor Marty mentioned the Festival in the Park and stated that last month’s Mounds View 16
Matters is being delivered. 17
18
Councilmember Thomas asked if Staff looks into the delay in delivery for the Mounds View 19
Matters. Mayor Marty stated it is getting worse instead of better. Councilmember Gunn stated it 20
does no good to have it delivered after the programs are passed. Councilmember Thomas stated 21
she has heard more about Mounds View Matters from residents than she has about billboards. 22
23
B. Reports of Staff 24
25
Director Lee reported regarding the street project, about whether to include Sherwood Road in 26
with the proposed road redevelopment projects. He stated the deadline for the voting form was 27
Friday and two votes were received, one in favor, one opposed. Director Lee recommended the 28
previous survey as a tie-breaker and that the section of Sherwood not be included. 29
30
Mayor Marty stated that the City asked for a traffic study and the costs surprised the Council. He 31
commended Director Lee for working on the study as the Council asked. 32
33
C. Reports of City Attorney 34
35
City Attorney Riggs stated there is with a summary and a proposal finalizing the issues with 36
Police Chief Ramaker. He stated he would like to finalize this officially. 37
38
Councilmember Thomas asked if the issue could be brought back at the next meeting. City 39
Attorney Riggs stated that is fine. 40
41
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, August 7, 2006, at 7 p.m. 42
Next Council Meeting: Monday, August 14, 2006, at 7 p.m. 43
44
13. ADJOURNMENT 45
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 29
1
The meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m. 2
3
Transcribed by: 4
5
Lauren McKay 6
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 7
Item No. 7C
Meeting Date: August 28, 2006
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6906 Approving the Feasibility Report,
Holding the Public Improvement Hearing, Ordering
the Project, Authorizing Plan and Specifications for
the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments
9&10
Background:
On January 9, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution 6716 authorizing the
preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant selection for the
County Road 10 Trailway, Lighting, and Landscape Project. At that time, the City
Council gave direction that the City should proceed with two segments of trailway
along the County Road 10 corridor: 1.) The segments on the north side between
County Road H and Silver Lake Road (Segments 1-6) and; 2.) the segments on
the south side between Long Lake Road and Silver Lake Road (Segments 9 &
10).
On August 7, 2006, a draft Preliminary Feasibility Report for the County Road 10
Trailway Project: Segments 9&10 was submitted for the City Council’s review.
On August 14, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution 6915 setting a Public
Improvement Hearing date of August 28, 2006 for the County Road 10 Trailway
Project: Segments 9 &10.
Discussion:
Preliminary Report - On the basis of the City Council's previous action, a
preliminary feasibility report has been prepared for the trailway segment on the
south side between Long Lake Road and Silver Lake Road (Segments 9 & 10)
and is submitted for the City Council’s review. Enclosed is a copy of said report.
This report is very comprehensive. The report includes a base project consisting
of a ten foot (10’) bituminous trailway on the south side of County Road 10 from
Silver Lake Road to Long Lake Road. The base project also includes pedestrian
lighting and landscaping. The report also includes connection alternatives.
Public Improvement Hearing – As per State Statute 429.031: “Before the
municipality awards a contract for an improvement or orders it made by day
labor, or before the municipality may assess any portion of the cost of an
improvement to be made under a cooperative agreement with the state or
another political subdivision for sharing the cost of making the improvement, the
council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed improvement following two
publications in the newspaper of a notice stating the time and place of the
hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated cost, and the area
proposed to be assessed.”
The purpose of the public improvement hearing is to provide interested parties an
opportunity to learn more about the proposed improvements and to comment on
them. Pursuant to Resolution 6915 a public hearing was set for August 28, 2006.
The hearing was advertised in the City’s official newspaper, The New Brighton-
Mounds View Bulletin, on August 16th and 23rd of this year. The Public Hearing
Notice and information on this project was published on the City’s web site.
A Public Improvement Hearing Notice, along with a copy of the draft feasibly
report, was sent via direct mail to all owners of property adjacent to this proposed
project – south side of County Road 10 from Silver Lake Road to Long Lake
Road. This was done utilizing the County Tax Record Database. The hearing
notice was also hand-delivered to the aforementioned properties.
Considerations if the Project Proceeds
There are currently several aspects of this draft report on which Staff is seeking
direction from the City Council. These are:
• Is the base project, which includes the trailway, lighting, and landscaping,
acceptable to the City Council as proposed in the report?
• With regard to the connection alternatives: How does the City Council
wish to proceed? If the City Council wishes to delete any or all of these
connection alternatives, this can be done at three points in the project
schedule:
o At the time the report is approved
o After plans and specifications are created for these alternatives
o After bids are received but before a contract is awarded
• How should this project be funded? Tax Increment Financing? Also, if the
connection alternatives are included in the project, how should they be
funded?
Order the Project – Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the
next step in the public improvement process is to order the project.
Authorize Plans and Specifications – The next step in the engineering process
is to order the preparation of plans and specifications.
Easement Preparation Activities (For Connection Alternatives) - The
feasibility report indicates that there may be a need for additional temporary
construction easements and permanent easements for items associated with the
Connection Alternatives. To ensure that the project stays on schedule, easement
preparation activities will need to commence as soon as plans indicate to what
extent they will be needed. For this reason, Staff is requesting authorization to
initiate these activities at this time. Such activities will include: discussions with
property owners, necessary appraisals, boundary sketches, legal descriptions,
and drafting of the legal easement documents.
What’s Next – Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the following
is a tentative schedule:
Approve Final Report, Hold Hearing, Order Project,
Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications August 28, 2006
Council Reviews Preliminary Design of
Landscape Architecture Elements October 2, 2006
Council Approves Preliminary Design of
Landscape Architecture Elements October 9, 2006
Approve Plans and Specifications and Sets Bid Date November 13, 2006
Open Bids December 7, 2006
Award Construction Contract December 11,2006
Begin Construction January 2, 2007
Complete Construction September 1, 2007
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution to approve the feasibility
report, hold a public improvement hearing, order the project, authorize the
preparations of plans and specifications, and authorize easement preparation
activities for the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 9&10.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6906
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT, HOLDING A PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT HEARING, ORDERING THE PROJECT, AUTHORIZING THE
PREPARATIONS OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
EASEMENT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 10
TRAILWAY PROJECT: SEGMENTS 9&10
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution
6716 authorizing the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant
selection for the County Road 10 Trailway, Lighting, and Landscape Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2006, a draft Preliminary Feasibility Report for
the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 9 &10 was submitted for the
City Council’s review; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution
6915 Setting a Public Improvement Hearing Date of August 28, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility report has been prepared and does find the
construction of said improvements to be necessary, cost effective and feasible;
and
WHEREAS, should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the next
step in the public improvement process is to order the project; and
WHEREAS, should the Council wish to proceed, the next step in the
engineering process is to order the preparation of plans and specifications; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility report indicates that there is a need for
additional temporary construction easements and permanent easements for
items associated with the Connection Alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the following is a list of recommended actions, should the City
Council wish to proceed with this project: approve the feasibility report, hold a
public improvement hearing, order the project, authorize the preparations of
plans and specifications, and authorize easement preparation activities for the
County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 9&10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The feasibility report for the County Road 10 Trailway Project:
Segments 9&10, which was prepared pursuant to Resolution 6716,
was submitted to the City by the engineering firm of Bonestroo,
Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA) dated August 2006 finds
the improvements to be necessary, cost effective and feasible and
is hereby approved.
2. Said improvements are hereby ordered and shall hereafter be
known and referred to as the County Road 10 Trailway Project:
Segments 9&10. Said ordering of the improvements shall be valid
for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of adoption of
this resolution.
3. The entire cost of said improvements shall be funded through the
City of Mounds View Tax Increment Fund.
4. The preparation of plans and specifications of said project is
authorized.
5. All activities associated with the preparation of temporary
construction easement and permanent easement agreements for
items associated with the Connection Alternatives, which includes
discussions with property owners, necessary appraisals, boundary
sketches, legal descriptions, and drafting the legal easement
documents, are hereby authorized.
Adopted this 28th day of August 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
August 16, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Mounds View will meet in the
Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2401 highway 10, Mounds View, MN at
7:15pm on August 28, 2006, to consider the making of an improvement to
provide a multi–use trail corridor consisting of a ten foot (10’) wide bituminous
trailway on the southside of County Road 10 from Silver Lake Road to Long Lake
Road including pedestrian lighting, landscaping, and connection alternatives to
existing public and private property pursuant to Mounds View City Charter -
Chapter 8, and Minnesota Statutes Sections 429.011 to 429.111.
A copy of the draft feasibility report for this proposed public improvement is
available for review at the Mounds View City Hall and is available on-line at:
http://www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/
There are no properties proposed to be assessed for said improvements. The
estimated cost of the improvement is $1,205,100.00. This amount is comprised
of two parts. The base project in the amount of $736,800.00 for the trailway,
landscaping, and lighting, and $468,300.00 for trailway connection alternatives.
Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement
will be heard at this meeting.
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
New Brighton Bulletin: August 16, 2006
August 23, 2006
Item No: 07D
Meeting Date: August 28, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
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: Aaron Backman
Item Title/Subject: Status Report in regard to the Interim Lease
Agreement with Oops Dinner Theatre in the
Mounds View Community Center and
Negotiations
Status:
The Oops Dinner Theatre concept was presented to the Mounds View City
Council at its July 17, 2006 Work Session. At the July 24, 2006 City Council
meeting the Council instructed City staff to prepare an Interim Lease Agreement
between the City and the dinner theatre. A short-term lease of seven months
that would run from September of 2006 through March of 2007 was discussed at
the August 14, 2006 City Council meeting. Several areas were discussed
including the revenue model and scheduling considerations. The per ticket
revenue model and a base rent model were discussed. Staff has met with the
dinner theatre and the YMCA to discuss issues related to rooms and schedules.
Staff has also discussed provisions of the interim lease agreement with the City
Attorney and Oops Dinner Theatre. The dinner theatre would use the Banquet
area, Multi-purpose Room “C” and Room “D”. At the present time negotiations
regarding the lease agreement are still ongoing. The main issues revolve around
access to the lease space, schedule coordination, and teardown and setup of
stage sets, etc.
As part of a potential utilization of offices by the YMCA, City staff obtained a
proposal from a local contractor (T&G Builders) to remove two non-load bearing
walls to open up the space for larger groups. The cost for the work is $3,100
(see attached proposal). The contractor indicates that the work could be
completed in approximately one week.
Recommendation:
As negotiations have not concluded, City staff recommends that the
proposed contract go before the City Work Session on September 5th.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Aaron Backman
Economic Development Coordinator
\\Trout\CommDev\Economic Development\COUNCIL\Item 7D Status of Oops Dinner Theatre Interim Lease 8.28.06.doc
Item No: 07F
Meeting Date: August 28, 2006
Type of Business: Council Business
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 6922 Approving 2006-2007 Labor Agreement with
AFSCME
Background:
The AFSCME membership approved the revised contract provisions at a meeting on
August 14, 2006. The contract items are consistent with the Council’s position established
at the August 14, 2006 Executive Session.
Discussion:
The revised contract includes the following provisions:
1. Wages and Insurance
3% January 1, 2006
3% January 1, 2007
2. Insurance: The 2006 Employer Contribution will be $685.20 for family
coverage and $732.20 for 2007.
To the extent allowed by law, the employer would pay Basic Medicare Select
Senior Gold Plan premium up to the employee benefit amount for employees
with such coverage. Said benefit will be done as a letter of understanding so
as to avoid the concern of setting a precedent for other employees. This
letter of understanding will be updated into the 2006-2007 AFSCME
Contract.
3. Uniform Allowance: The uniform allowance will be set at $330 for 2006 and
$340 for 2007.
4. Retirement Health Savings Plan
The City agrees to add the Retirement Health Savings Plan language as
stated in Section 3.45 of the Mounds View Personnel Manual.
5. Holidays
The City agrees to add the same Holiday language as stated in Section 3.10
of the Mounds View Personnel Manual.
6. Vacation
City agrees to add an additional accrual of 25 days after 20 years of service.
There will be no accumulation of one day per year after 15 years.
7. Leave of Absence
The City agrees to add the Leave of Absence as stated in Section 2.05
(Family and Medical Leave) of the Mounds View City Personnel Policy.
8. Education – Tuition Reimbursement
The City agrees to add Tuition Reimbursement language as stated in Section
1.53 of the Mounds View Personnel Manual.
9. Work Out of Class
The following language will be added to the contract:
Employees assigned, in writing, by the EMPLOYER to assume the full
responsibility and authority of a higher job classification shall receive the
salary schedule for the higher classification for the duration of the
assignment.
10. Severance
Severance eligibility requirements will be reduced to 8 years in 2006 and
reduced to 6 years in 2007.
11. Wage Re-opener
Upon execution of this Agreement, the Agreement may be reopened by
either party on the issues of wages. A party so desiring to reopen the
Agreement must do so by serving written notice on the other party no later
than July 31, 2007. Wage adjustments will be considered for positions as
required to come into compliance with pay equity laws, and for positions that
fall above or below the City’s Classification and Compensation Plan.
Compensation ranges above the market average will be frozen until the
position reaches an agreed upon market range.
12. The Communications Coordinator and the Temporary Building Inspector will
be added to the contract.
13. Any language pertaining to the Golf Course will be taken out of the contract.
14. The duration of the contract will be two years (January 1, 2006 to December
31, 2007).
15. AFSCME Council Number 14 will be changed AFSCME Council Number 5
throughout the contract.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution 6922
approving the 2006-2007contract for the AFSCME, Council 5 Union.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION 6922
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2006-2007 LABOR AGREEMENT
WITH
AFSCME UNION LOCAL 5
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby ratify the AFSCME Union, Local 5
Bargaining Unit Contract for 2006 and 2007, with the following amendments:
1. Wages and Insurance
3% January 1, 2006
3% January 1, 2007
2. Insurance: The 2006 Employer Contribution will be $685.20 for family
coverage and $732.20 for 2007.
To the extent allowed by law, the employer would pay Basic Medicare Select
Senior Gold Plan premium up to the employee benefit amount for employees
with such coverage. Said benefit will be done as a letter of understanding so
as to avoid the concern of setting a precedent for other employees. This
letter of understanding will be updated into the 2006-2007 AFSCME
Contract.
3. Uniform Allowance: The uniform allowance will be set at $330 for 2006 and
$340 for 2007.
4. Retirement Health Savings Plan
The City agrees to add the Retirement Health Savings Plan language as
stated in Section 3.45 of the Mounds View Personnel Manual.
5. Holidays
The City agrees to add the same Holiday language as stated in Section 3.10
of the Mounds View Personnel Manual.
6. Vacation
City agrees to add an additional accrual of 25 days after 20 years of service.
There will be no accumulation of one day per year after 15 years.
Resolution 6922
August 28, 2006
Page 2
7. Leave of Absence
The City agrees to add the Leave of Absence as stated in Section 2.05
(Family and Medical Leave) of the Mounds View City Personnel Policy.
8. Education – Tuition Reimbursement
The City agrees to add Tuition Reimbursement language as stated in Section
1.53 of the Mounds View Personnel Manual.
9. Work Out of Class
The following language will be added to the contract:
Employees assigned, in writing, by the EMPLOYER to assume the full
responsibility and authority of a higher job classification shall receive the
salary schedule for the higher classification for the duration of the
assignment.
10. Severance
Severance eligibility requirements will be reduced to 8 years in 2006 and
reduced to 6 years in 2007.
11. Wage Re-opener
Upon execution of this Agreement, the Agreement may be reopened by
either party on the issues of wages. A party so desiring to reopen the
Agreement must do so by serving written notice on the other party no later
than July 31, 2007. Wage adjustments will be considered for positions as
required to come into compliance with pay equity laws, and for positions that
fall above or below the City’s Classification and Compensation Plan.
Compensation ranges above the market average will be frozen until the
position reaches an agreed upon market range.
12. The Communications Coordinator and the Temporary Building Inspector will
be added to the contract.
13. Any language pertaining to the Golf Course will be taken out of the contract.
14. The duration of the contract will be two years (January 1, 2006 to December
31, 2007).
15. AFSCME Council Number 14 will be changed AFSCME Council Number 5
throughout the contract; and
Resolution 6922
August 28, 2006
Page 3
WHEREAS, the City Council has traditionally awarded the same cost of living
increase and health insurance contribution to all employee groups in order to maintain
internal equity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mounds View does hereby ratify the AFSCME Union, Local 5 effective for two years
from January 1, 2006 until the 31st day of December 2007.
Adopted this 28th day of August, 2006.
________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 07G
Meeting Date: August 28, 2006
Type of Business: CB
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6923 Step Increases for Heidi Heller (Planning
Associate), and Officer Peter Berling (Police Officer)
Background:
Heidi Heller and Peter Berling are current employees with the City of Mounds View.
Their supervisors have reviewed their performances as it relates to their responsibilities
outlined in the job description.
Discussion:
It was determined that they have more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of
their position, and therefore, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the
Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements.
Pending on the outcome of Item 07E (Resolution approving the 2006-2007 AFSCME
Contract), staff will provide a revised Resolution that will have an updated amount for
Heidi Heller, Planning Associate. The Planning Associate is currently an AFSCME
Union Position.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of attached Resolution 6923.
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree Crane
RESOLUTION 6923
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING STEP/LONGEVITY ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, the following below are regular full-time employees who are
currently working for the City of Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, their supervisor reviewed their performance as it relates to the
responsibilities outlined in the job description; and
WHEREAS, their supervisor determined that the following employee below have
more than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of their position documented in their
performance review on file.
WHEREAS, a step increase wage adjustment is consistent with the Mounds
View Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a wage adjustment to the following indicated in the chart below.
NAME CURRENT
POSITION
DATE OF
EMPLOYMENT/CURRENT
POSITION
CURRENT STEP &
WAGE
STEP & WAGE
ADJUSTMENT
EFFECTIVE
DATE OF
ADJUSTMENT
Heidi Heller Planning
Associate
Date of Employment:
September 6, 2005
Step 2: $18.89/hr
Step 3: (Amount
pending outcome
of Item 07E)
September 6,
2006
Peter Berling MV Police
Officer
Date of Employment:
August 1, 2005
Step 2: $19.63/hr Step3: $22.43/hr August 1, 2006
Adopted this 28th day of August, 2006.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No:7I
Meeting Date: August 28, 2006
Type of Business: CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jeremiah Anderson, Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6919 Authorizing Abatement of Code Violations
Outside 2318 Knoll Drive
Date of Report: August 17, 2006
Background:
On May 22, 2006, staff inspected the property located at 2318 Knoll Drive in response to
allegations of exterior storage in violation of city code. Staff spoke to the property owner
Mr. Clifford Wies on May 22, 2006, explained the City ordinance requirements, and
issued a notice of violation to Mr. Wies citing Section 607.03 Subdivision 3c of the City
Code which required that corrective actions were completed by June 22, 2006.
Discussion:
Chapter 607 of the City Code defines and regulates nuisances. Section 607.02 defines
nuisances in their most general form as any act, substance, matter, emission or thing which
creates a dangerous or unhealthy condition or which threatens the public peace, health, safety
or sanitary condition of the City or which is offensive or has a blighting influence on the
community. Section 607.03 Subdivision 3c applies specifically to public nuisances affecting
peace and safety. Section 607.03 Subdivision 3c prohibits The outside piling, storing or keeping
of old machinery, junk, furniture, household furnishings or appliances or component parts
thereof, rusting metal inoperable/unusable equipment, or other debris visible on private or public
property.
A review of City records indicates that the property at 2318 Knoll drive was issued a notice of
violation on September 18, 2003 regarding an accumulation of junk outside and a vehicle parked
off an improved driveway. A second notice of violation was issued on May 24, 2004 regarding
vehicles parked off the improved driveway and accumulations of junk and debris outside. Each
of these notices cited violations of the Chapter 607 of the City Code regarding exterior storage
and parking vehicles off an improved surface. In each of these cases the enforcement action
was closed when substantial compliance was obtained, meaning that minimum requirements
had been satisfied.
Section 607.09 Subdivision 5 provides the opportunity to reach compliance by abating items in
violation of the requirements contained within Chapter 607. In cases where no immediate threat
to the public health
and safety exists the requirements of the City code require that staff notify the property owner of
their intent to seek City Council authorization to abate the conditions present and their
opportunity to be heard before the council, provided however, that at least 10 days notice is
provided, staff has satisfied these and other applicable requirements of Chapter 607 of the City
Code.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of resolution 6919.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeremiah Anderson
Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector
Attachments
Photographic Documentation
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey
and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a
compilation of records, information and data located in
various city, county, state and federal offices and other
sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for
reference purposes only.
Ramsey County
Parcels
Information
Report
Parcel ID:053023310072
Street Number:2318
Street:KNOLL DR
City:MOUNDS VIEW
Owner Name 1:CLIFFORD WIES JR
Ramsey County Property (RRINFO) Search Search by Parcel ID
Parcel ID 053023310072
Street Number 2318
Unit
Street KNOLL DR
City MOUNDS VIEW
ZIP 55112-1265
Owner Name 1 CLIFFORD WIES JR
Owner Name 2 LYNNE F WIES
Owner Street Address 2318 KNOLL DR
Owner City/State/Zip MOUNDS VIEW MN 55112-1265
Homesteader Name 1 CLIFFORD WIES JR
Homesteader Name 2 LYNNE F WIES
Homesteader Street Address 2318 KNOLL DR
Homesteader City/State/Zip MOUNDS VIEW MN 55112-1265
Deeded Acres 0.28
Deeded Area (sq.ft.)12196.8
Approximate Lot Frontage (ft)80
Tax Description PINEWOOD TERRACE NO. 5 LOT 11 BLK 17
Plat Name PINEWOOD TERRACE NO. 5
Date Plat Recorded 11/14/52
Abstract ID 1295469
Torrens ID
County Land Use Code (CAMA)SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, PLATTED LOT
County Land Use Code (PR&R)RESIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 2CiviXplorer Online! Attribute Report
8/23/2006http://maps.metro-inet.us/rcarcims/ims?ServiceName=ramsey_master&ClientVersion=4.0...
Market Value Land 2007 74000
Market Value Bldg 2007 109000
Market Value Total 2007 183000
Market Value Land 2006 74000
Market Value Bldg 2006 102600
Market Value Total 2006 176600
Total Tax Payable 2006 2110
Market Value Land 2005 74000
Market Value Bldg 2005 95700
Market Value Total 2005 169700
Total Tax Payable 2005 2014
Date of Last Sale
Sale Price 0
Homestead Description Full-homestead
Number of Residential Units 1
Year Residence Built 1966
Total Residential Living Area 1196
Residence Exterior FRAME
Residence Style RAMBLER
Residence Number of Stories 1
Residence Number of Rooms 6
Residence Number of Bedrooms 4
Commercial Structure Type
Commercial Year Built 0
Topography Level
Utilities All Public
School District Mounds View Area
Watershed District Rice Creek
Page 2 of 2CiviXplorer Online! Attribute Report
8/23/2006http://maps.metro-inet.us/rcarcims/ims?ServiceName=ramsey_master&ClientVersion=4.0...
RESOLUTION 6919
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE CODE VIOLATIONS AT 2318 KNOLL DRIVE, MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA, 55112.
WHEREAS, Clifford Wies Jr and Lynne F Wies are the owners of property located at
2318 Knoll Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 11 Block 17 Pinewood Terrace Number 5
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2006, staff inspected the property located at 2318 Knoll Drive
in response to a complaint regarding allegations of exterior storage in violation of city codes,
staff spoke to Mr. Clifford Wies and explained the City ordinance requirements; and
WHEREAS, a notice of violation was issued to Mr. Wies dated May 22, 2006, staff cited
Section 607.03 Subdivision. 3c which prohibited the exterior storage and accumulation of old
machinery, junk, rusting metal, inoperable/unusable equipment or other debris on the exterior
property located at 2318 Knoll Drive, staff requested corrective actions completed to bring the
property into compliance with the Nuisance Code by June 22, 2006; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2006 staff performed a follow up inspection of the property
located at 2318 Knoll Dr to verify corrective actions had begun and found that only minimal
progress had been made, photographs of the exterior were obtained at that time; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2006 staff reinspected the property located at 2318 Knoll Dr to
verify corrective actions had been completed and found that little if any progress had been made
since the June 15, 2006 follow up inspection, photographs of the exterior were obtained at that
time; and
WHEREAS Clifford Wies Jr is responsible for maintaining Nuisance Code violations on
the exterior above-said property that include, but are not limited to:
1. Discarded sheet metal and rusting metal 6. Junk piles alongside house
2. Old machinery 7. Metal and Plastic 55-gal drums full of debris
3. Automotive parts and components 8. Inoperable/Unlicensed truck in driveway
4. Debris under pickup truck topper 9. Vehicles parked in back yard
5. Upright cylinders of pressurized gas 10. Accumulation of tires
WHEREAS, in a letter to the property owner dated August 9, 2006, staff notified Mr.
Wies of its intent to appear before the Mounds View City Council on August 28, 2006 to request
authorization to abate violations cited in the Notice of Violation dated May 22, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the nuisance code violations at 2318 Knoll Drive
constitute a Public Nuisance under Section 607.03 Subdivision 3c and the City may abate and
assess the costs of said abatement against the property pursuant to Minn. Stat. 429.101; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the notification requirement for nuisance
abatement as stated in Section 607.09, Subdivision 6d 1 of the Mounds View Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, Clifford Wies Jr and Lynne F Wies, property owners of 2318 Knoll Drive,
will be personally liable to the City for the costs of such abatement, including administrative
costs pursuant to Section 607.09, Subdivision 7 of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, if the property owners fail to pay the cost, after being duly notified, of the
abatement of nuisance code violations at 2318 Knoll Drive within 30 days after the date of the
invoice, the City may certify the unpaid costs against the property pursuant to Section 607.09,
Subdivision 8 of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The City will abate violations of Section 607.03 Subdivision. 3c of the City Code within 10
days.
1. The City Council authorizes City staff to complete any actions necessary to achieve
compliance with the City Code with respect to exterior violations of Section 607.03
Subdivision 3c.
2. City staff will complete an inventory of any items removed from the exterior premises,
ascertaining with reasonable certainty which items may be of relative value and placing
said items into storage at a secure location, which will be available to Mr. Wies upon
payment of costs associated with their removal and storage.
3. Clifford Wies Jr and Lynne F Wies shall be personally liable to the City for the costs of
abatement, including administrative costs and reasonable storage costs.
4. Any unpaid portion of the abatement costs after 30 days of the date on the invoice may be
certified as special assessments against the property pursuant to Section 607.08,
Subdivision. 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
Adopted this 28th day of August, 2006
____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk/Administrator
Item No: 7J
Meeting Date: August 28, 2006
Type of Business: Action
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 the Final Plat for a
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. The final plat has had no
changes from the preliminary plat.
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.
8360 Long Lake Road Subdivision
Staff Report - Page 2
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 applicant, Mr. Hofmann, has indicated that he is not planning
on removing any more trees than necessary for construction.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously 5-0 (Zwirn & Meehlhause absent) on July 5,
2006 to recommend approval of this preliminary plat, and Council unanimously voted to
approve the preliminary plat on July 24, 2006.
8360 Long Lake Road Subdivision
Staff Report - Page 3
Recommendation:
Review the plans and discuss the final plat. Staff review and a brief review by the county
surveyor revealed no deficiencies at this time and thus Resolution 6924 recommending
approval of the final plat has been drafted for your action if the Council so desires.
Heidi Heller
Planning Associate
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 for Preliminary Plat Approval
9. Resolution 6924
Zoning Map
Aerial View
Proposed 3 lots
Ardan Park
Photographic Documentation
View of house currently on property –
house is placed approximately in the
middle of the 250 foot wide lot
Current house
View of south half of
8360 Long Lake Road
Current house
View of north half of
8360 Long Lake Road
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
Resolution 843-06
Page 2
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 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
Resolution 6888
Page 2
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)
RESOLUTION NO. 6924
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR 8360 LONG LAKE ROAD;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2006-001
WHEREAS, Matthew Hofmann has requested approval of a final plat for the major
subdivision of 8360 Long Lake Road, legally-described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Charles Hermann Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, The above-described land is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and is
designated as Single-Family Detached on the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, Matthew has submitted a Final Plat, date stamped August 8, 2006, for the
major subdivision which creates 3 buildable lots, and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to
a park dedication fee which would be equivalent to two-thirds (2/3) of 10% of the assessed
value of the land; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Zoning Map
4. Location Map
5. Preliminary Plat, dated June 15, 2006
6. Planning Commission Resolution 843-06
7. Resolution 6888, Adopted July 24, 2006
8. Staff Report
9. Final Plat, date stamped August 8, 2006
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of
approval from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 843-06; and,
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2006, the Mounds View City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing regarding this subdivision and approved Resolution 6888 which approved the
preliminary plat; and,
Resolution 6924
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Attorney has reviewed the final plat and finds it to be in
conformance with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code, subject to the
conditions and requirements contained in this Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the proposed final plat for the
subdivision and finds it to be consistent with the preliminary plat and in conformance with
Resolution 6888 and with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code, subject
to the conditions and requirements contained in this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, having
already approved the preliminary plat, approves the final plat for the subdivision of 8360 Long
Lake Road, subject to stipulations as follows:
1. Prior to the Final Plat execution, Matthew Hofmann shall pay a park
dedication fee in the amount of $10,640.00.
2. Matthew Hofmann shall obtain final approval from Rice Creek Watershed
District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction
activity commences.
3. No grading or construction activity may proceed without all necessary
permits having been obtained.
4. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall
be located underground.
5. Necessary permits shall be obtained for any and all work occurring within
the City or County right of way.
6. City approval is contingent upon Ramsey County’s approval.
7. Matthew Hofmann shall successfully complete any and all requirements
from the review of the final plat by the City Attorney and City Engineer and
City Staff.
8. The approval contemplated herein is subject to the condition that Matthew
Hofmann must pay for all costs incurred by the City concerning this
subdivision, including preparation and review of the preliminary and final plat
by technical assistants and the costs incurred by the City Attorney, city
consultants, as well as other costs of a similar nature.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that approval of this final plat is
subject to approval by and recordation with Ramsey County, which shall occur within one
hundred twenty (120) days of Council approval. Matthew Hofmann shall furnish the City with
a reproducible copy of the final plat showing evidence of the recording; otherwise, the
approval of the final plat shall be void.
Resolution 6924
Page 3
Adopted this 28th day of August, 2006.
__________________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich,
City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 7M
Meeting Date: August 28, 2006
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
Administrator Review:___
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6931 Approving Change Order No. 35 for
the City Hall Rehabilitation Project
Background:
In September of 2005, when the City awarded the construction contract for the
City Hall Project, it was stated that with a project of this nature, it is inevitable that
there will need to be minor adjustments to the scope of the project. These
adjustments are a necessary way to ensure that this project is completed in a
timely manner and that the City gets the maximum benefit from this project.
On February 13, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6736 authorizing
Change Orders No. 1 through 3 and authorized a contract for network cabling.
On February 27, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6757 authorizing
Change Orders No. 4 through 6 and authorized initiation of HVAC changes.
On March 13, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6771 authorizing
Change Orders No. 7 through 10.
On March 27, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6784 authorizing
Change Orders No. 11 through 17.
On May 8, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6810 authorizing Change
Orders No. 18 and 19.
On May 22, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6825 authorizing
Change Orders No. 20 through 26.
On June 12, 2006, Resolution 6845 was introduced which included Change
Orders No. 27 through 30. This resolution failed due to the lack of three
affirmative votes.
On June 26, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 6860 authorizing
Change Orders No. 27 through 34.
Discussion
Adjustments recommended during construction are referred to as Architectural
Supplemental Information (ASI’s). These are common in all architectural projects
and are even more prevalent in re-model projects. Many of these items are
simple adjustments that do not require additional work from the contractor. These
are noted as “NC” – no charge. Other adjustments may include additional
materials or labor and are listed as an additional cost, while other ASI’s may
include a credit in cases where materials or labor that were included in the
original contract are no longer necessary.
There are several ASI items for which we currently have prices/credits and their
associated Change Orders have been submitted:
Change Order No. 35
Change Order No. 35 is a combination of eight (8) ASI’s.
ASI-COR#77: is to replace low voltage relays, conduit to RTU-6, Installation of
relays for exhaust fans.
ASI-RFI#4: is for low voltage in Council 102 / replace devices.
ASI-COR#93: is for additional electrical work in conference Room , new breaker,
lower level.
ASI-49.1: is for additional requested electrical work.
ASI-50: is for additional paint work.
ASI-54.1: is for fixing CMU wall in interview room.
ASI-57: is for addition of building address to dimensional letters package.
ASI-CO#8: is a deduction for work not done in CO#8.
The combined cost of the ASI’s in change order No. 35 is $11,331.00. All of the
ASI’s that make up change order No. 35 were presented to the City Council on
June 26, 2006. At this time, their combined estimated cost was $17,612.00.
City Hall Rehabilitation Project Budget
The Special Projects Fund, as per the 2005 budget (Account No. 280-4160-
7050), has $1,600,000 budgeted for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project.
The total amount of all change orders for this project is estimated to be
$143,132.00. A complete summary sheet is attached. These are all of the
change orders for this project. Exact costs for some items have yet to be
determined. In these cases, the cost was estimated utilizing a contingency to
ensure that the final amount would certainly be equal to or less than this figure.
Please note that the final change orders include adding a handicapped entry
door operator system.
The following is a summary of the estimated final cost of this project:
City Hall Rehabilitation Cost Items
Construction Contract $1,185,000
Construction Services $46,000
Change Orders $136,851
Grading Contractor $5,500
Vegetation Establishment / Landscape Contractor $7,500
Part time / Temporary employee (did not do –was $5800) $0
Re-Settlement Work $6,000
Furniture Budget initial purchase 2/13/2006 $61,525
Furniture contract adjustment 2/27/2006 $2,104
Furniture contract adjustment 8/14/2006 $13,514
Moving contractor $20,000
Police Office Space Rental $0
Storage Shelving $8,800
Interior Decorations / Pictures $3,000
Window Treatments $7,400
Community Center Rental $40,000
Estimated Total $1,543,194
At previous City Council meetings, the City Council has raised several questions
pertaining to various issues associated with the City Hall Project. This topic has
been placed on the September 5, 2006 City Council Work Session Agenda for
discussion.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution approving Change
Order No. 35 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION 6931
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 35 FOR THE CITY HALL
REHABILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, in September of 2005, the City awarded the
construction contract for the City Hall Project; and
WHEREAS, unforeseen circumstances may arise from time to time
that will necessitate minor adjustments and changes in the original construction
plan; and
WHEREAS, there are several items for which we currently have
prices and have been included in change order No. 35; and
WHEREAS, the combined cost of the ASI’s in change order No. 35
is $11,331.00; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that funds to finance change order
No. 35 be derived from the Special Project Account for the City Hall Project
(account: 280-4180-7050-100).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That Change Order No. 35 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project is
hereby approved.
2. Execution of said documents is hereby authorized.
3. That said Change Orders shall be financed with funds derived from the
Special Project Account for this Project (Account: 280-4180-7050-100).
Adopted this 28th day of August 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 8A
Meeting Date August 28, 2006
Type of Business: CA
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.
J. G. Hause Construction General (Commercial) New
Nasseff Mechanical Contractors, Inc. HVAC New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Reviewed by City Administrator: ________
Item No. 8B
Meeting Date: August 28, 2006
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Ryan Johnson, Public Works Intern
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6926 Establishing a No Parking Zone on
Spring Lake Road
Background:
The City was contacted by a resident with concerns regarding a section of Spring
Lake Road along the west side of Spring Lake; the resident felt that it is being
damaged due to vehicles parking on this side of the road and that motorists and
pedestrians are being put in danger.
Discussion:
In response, Public Works Staff reviewed this segment of Spring Lake Road and
concluded that it would be in the City’s best interest to post it as “No Parking” on
the west side of Spring Lake Road from 7785 Spring Lake Road south to County
Road I.
The City then sent a letter to six property owners along this segment asking for
opinions and thoughts regarding this proposal to designate this section of Spring
Lake Road as No Parking. The City received two responses to this letter; both
were in favor of the proposal.
The Police Chief and the Public Works Supervisor have also reviewed the
proposal to designate the west side of Spring Lake Road from 7785 Spring Lake
Road south to County Road I as a No Parking Zone.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a No
Parking Zone along the west side of Spring Lake Road from 7785 Spring Lake
Road south to County Road I.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ryan Johnson, Public Works Intern
RESOLUTION 6926
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF SPRING
LAKE ROAD FROM 7785 SOUTH TO COUNTY ROAD I
WHEREAS, the City was contacted by a resident with concerns
regarding a section of Spring Lake Road along the west side of Spring Lake; the
resident felt that it is being damaged due to vehicles parking on this side of the
road and that motorists and pedestrians are being put in danger; and
WHEREAS, eliminating parking on this segment of Spring Lake
Road will allow motorist to see pedestrians more clearly and prevent
unnecessary road erosion; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works and Public Safety Departments have
reviewed this segment of Spring Lake Road and recommend that the City post it
as “No Parking”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. Parking shall be prohibited along the west side of Spring Lake
Road from 7785 Spring Lake Road south to County Road I.
2. The Mounds View Public Works Department is hereby authorized
to purchase the necessary signage and erect said signage as per
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises.
Adopted this 28th day of August 2006.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 8C
Meeting Date: August 28, 2006
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: Nick Fleischhacker, Surface Water Specialist
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6920 Approving a Contract Award for
the Repair Drainage Area Within Lambert Park
Background:
In 2005 the City was notified of a ponding problem to the rear of Lambert Park.
(See attachment B)
After observing the drainage problem, Staff has determined that the problem is
severe enough to warrant repair. The drainage swale is not conveying water
appropriately. The said drainage area will require grading and the placement of
energy dissipaters (rock or Rip-rap) to help convey the flow of water to the inlet
located in the park. (See attachment A)
NOTE: Ponding occurs in the spring of each year making the right field of the
baseball field at the park unusable. During the summer months this area will stay
flooded for several days following a rain event.
Discussion:
There have been several complaints about this area. The absence of energy
dissipaters has caused washouts in the area and small deep ditches (See
Attachment A). This washout could be a potential hazard to people playing
baseball as well as children playing on the nearby playground.
Work Detail:
All grading work will be performed inside the park. Contractors will then re-grade
the drainage easement to facilitate the flow of water to the storm sewer inlet as
originally intended. After all grading work is completed all disturbed areas will be
seeded.
The work is anticipated to begin immediately following Mayor and City Council
approval. Although work could be postponed due to unsuitable ground conditions
work is anticipated to begin immediately and expected to last one week.
The Public Works Department solicited quotes from several companies. As of
this date a total of three (3) bids have been received.
A summary of the bids / quotes follows:
Company Total Bid
Mattco Excavating, Inc. $3900.00
Final Grade, Inc. $4300.00
Belair Excavating No Bid
The lowest bidder was Mattco Excavating, Inc. with a quote of $3900.00.
Mattco Excavating has performed work for the City in the past for things such as
water and sewer service repairs.
The 2006 adopted budget has $50,000 allocated for the repair of drainage issues
throughout the City (account 245-4415-5150).
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a contract award with Mattco
Excavating, Inc. in the estimated amount of $3900.00 for the repair of the
drainage easement located in Lambert Park.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nick Fleischhacker; Surface Water Specialist
RESOLUTION 6920
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE REPAIR OF DRAINAGE AREA
IN LAMBERT PARK
WHEREAS, the City annually budgets and received bids for repair of
drainage issues throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department solicited quotes from several
companies; and
WHEREAS, a total of three (3) quotes have been received; and
WHEREAS, the low bidder was Mattco Excavation, Inc. in the estimated
amount of $3,900; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 adopted budget has $50,000.00 in funds allocated
for the repair of drainage issued throughout the City (account 245-4415-5150).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve a contract award with Mattco Excavation, Inc. in
the estimated amount of $3,900.00 for the repair of the drainage swale located in
Lambert Park
Adopted this 28th day of August 2006.
______________________________
Rob Marty, Mayor
(ATTEST)
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Attachment A
Attachment B
Ponding occurs in the gentle swale
located to the left of the picture.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Executive Session
Date: 08/14/06
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
Time: 6:00 pm
1. 6:05pm EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Marty, Council Members Gunn, Flaherty, Stigney, and Thomas. City
Administrator Kurt Ulrich, and Assistant to the City Administrator Desaree
Crane.
3. DISCUSS UNION NEGOTIATIONS
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed and discussed the status of current union
contract negotiations with the Council.
4. 6:21PM MEETING ADJOURNED
Respectfully Submitted:
Kurt Ulrich
City Administrator