The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packets - 2005/01/24 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, January 24, 2005 7:00 p.m. (Revised as of January 24, 2005 @ 1030am) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty 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. Annual Storm Water Permit Review - Present and discuss the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution 6418 Approving the 2005 Golf Course Seasonal Positions Staff recommends that the City Council approve the 2005 Seasonal Golf Course Positions. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ B. Resolution 6437 Accepting the Improvements at CVS Pharmacy located at 2800 County Road 10. Adopt Resolution 6437, accepting the improvements for the CVS Pharmacy development and releasing 90% of the financial guarantee. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ C. Resolution 6442 Authorizing the Purchase of two replacement Squad Cars for the Police Department Staff recommends approval for the replacement of two squad cards under the sate bid through Superior Ford, for two 2005 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors, at an estimated total cost of $41,800.00 excluding tax, registration and license. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ D. Resolution 6443 Supporting Legislation Permitting Certain Employees of Blaine, Spring Lake Park, and Mounds View to Become Members of the Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Plan. Resolution of Support from the City of Mounds View re Legislation Permitting Certain Employees of Blaine, Spring Lake Park, and Mounds View to Become Members of the Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Plan. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ E. Licenses for Approval Approve attached Licenses Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, February 14, 2005 at 7:20 pm to Consider Resolution 6440, an Off Sale Liquor License for Vino & Stogies located at 2345 County Road H2 in Mounds View. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 pm. Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 754, an Ordinance Establishing Planning and Development Fees. (ROLL CALL VOTE) -- Ericson Staff recommends approval of the introduction and first reading of the attached Ordinance 754 which amends and reaffirms various Mounds View planning and development fees. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ B. 7:10 pm. Public Hearing and Consideration of the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 757, an Ordinance Vacating an Unused and Excess Utility Easement Associated with 8265 Spring Lake Road. (ROLL CALL VOTE) -- Ericson Hold the Public Hearing as required by City Charter and approve the second readying and adoption of Ordinance 757, an ordinance vacating an excess utility easement associated with the property located at 8265 Spring Lake Rd. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ C. 7:15 pm. Public Hearing, Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 755, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to building Heights in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. -- Ericson Review to proposed amendment and direct staff accordingly. If the amendment as proposed is acceptable, a resolution has been drafted for Commission consideration which would be forwarded to the City Council along with the proposed amendment. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ D. 7:20 pm. Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 756, an Ordinance Amending the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Nonconforming Driveways and Curb-cuts. (ROLL CALL VOTE) -- Ericson Ordinance 756 was introduced for first reading on January 10, 2005. No changes have been made and is presented for second reading and adoption. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ E. Resolution 6429 Approving the 2004-2005 LELS Police Officers Labor Contract. This item will be discussed in executive session at 6pm preceding the EDA Meeting. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ F. Resolution 6438 Approving the Election Judges for the 2005 Special Election for February 1, 2005. Approve the appointment of election judges for the 2005 Special Election. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ G. Resolution 6439 Approving a one-day charitable gambling permit for Pinewood Elementary PTA for a Raffle at Pinewood Elementary School on March 6, 2005. Recommend approval of a one day charitable gambling permit to conduct a raffle at Pinewood Elementary School in Mounds View. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ H. Resolution 6441 Approving a Tobacco License for a new business called Vino & Stogies located at 2345 County Road H2 in Mounds View. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Cigarette/Tobacco license pending a satisfactory fire inspection. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ I. Resolution 6444, Purchase of Advertising from Prime Advertising and Design in the Blaine Community Resource & Residents’ Guide Staff recommends approval of Reso 6444 for the purchase of advertising from Prime Advertising and Design in the Blaine Community Resource and Residents’ Guide in the amount of $1,239.00. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ J. Resolution 6417 Authorizing The Bridges of Mounds View to advertising with Paluch. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 6417 for the purchase of advertising from JS Paluch Company in the amount of $494.00. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ K. Discussion of Request from Past Employees to Join the Retirement Health Savings Plan. The issues that need a decision by the City Council include the following: 1. Is the Council willing to allow the past retirees to convert to RHS? 2. The balances above are the remainders from a conversion at the rate of 65% of sick time. Is the Council willing to allow those balances (minus any premiums paid before the conversion) to go into RHS or must the balances be recalculated on the basis of 50% of sick leave? 3. If one of the retirees isn’t interested, is the Council willing to consider means to compel these employees to convert since the ICMA has determined that it must be the entire group or no one? Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ L. Resolution 6445 Amending the 2005 General Fund and Economic Development Authority Fund Budgets. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution 6445 to amend the 2005 budgets of the General Fund and the Economic Development Authority Fund. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ M. Resolution 6435 Rejecting all Current Bids, Authorizing Staff to Re-Advertise For Bids, and Establishing a Bid Date for the Replacement of Carpet at the Mounds View Community Center Staff recommends that the Council adopt attached Resolution 6435 and reject all current bids. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ N. Right of Entry Agreement to Allow Medtronics to Perform Environmental Study of Golf Course. Staff recommendsapproval of the Attached Right of Entry Agreement with Medtronic, Inc.. Motion Made: ____________________ Motion Second: _____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Minutes January 10, 2005 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff 1. Finance Department Quarterly Report C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, February 7, 2005 at 7pm Next Council Meeting: (SPECIAL) Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 6pm (Canvass of Special Election and Oath of Office for newly elected Councilmember) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, January 24, 2005 7:00 p.m. (REVISED AS OF JAN 24, 2005 @ 1030am) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty 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. Annual Storm Water Permit Review - Present and discuss the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution 6418 Approving the 2005 Golf Course Seasonal Positions B. Resolution 6437 Accepting the Improvements at CVS Pharmacy located at 2800 County Road 10. C. Resolution 6442 Authorizing the Purchase of two replacement Squad Cars for the Police Department D. Resolution 6443 Supporting Legislation Permitting Certain Employees of Blaine, Spring Lake Park, and Mounds View to Become Members of the Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Plan E. Licenses for Approval F. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, February 14, 2005 at 7:20 pm to Consider Resolution 6440, an Off Sale Liquor License for Vino & Stogies located at 2345 County Road H2 in Mounds View. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 pm. Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 754, an Ordinance Establishing Planning and Development Fees. (ROLL CALL VOTE) -- Ericson B. 7:10 pm. Public Hearing and Consideration of the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 757, an Ordinance Vacating an Unused and Excess Utility Easement Associated with 8265 Spring Lake Road. (ROLL CALL VOTE) -- Ericson C. 7:15 pm. Public Hearing, Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 755, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to building Heights in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. -- Ericson D. 7:20 pm. Public Hearing to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 756, an Ordinance Amending the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Nonconforming Driveways and Curb-cuts. (ROLL CALL VOTE) -- Ericson E. Resolution 6429 Approving the 2004-2005 LELS Police Officers Labor Contract. F. Resolution 6438 Approving the Election Judges for the 2005 Special Election for February 1, 2005. G. Resolution 6439 Approving a one-day charitable gambling permit for Pinewood Elementary PTA for a Raffle at Pinewood Elementary School on March 6, 2005. H. Resolution 6441 Approving a Tobacco License for a new business called Vino & Stogies located at 2345 County Road H2 in Mounds View. I. Resolution 6444, Purchase of Advertising from Prime Advertising and Design in the Blaine Community Resource & Residents’ Guide J. Resolution 6417 Authorizing The Bridges of Mounds View to advertising with Paluch. K. Discussion of Request from Past Employees to Join the Retirement Health Savings Plan. L. Resolution 6445 Amending the 2005 General Fund and Economic Development Authority Fund Budgets. M. Resolution 6435 Rejecting all Current Bids, Authorizing Staff to Re-Advertise For Bids, and Establishing a Bid Date for the Replacement of Carpet at the Mounds View Community Center N. Right of Entry Agreement to Allow Medtronic to Perform Environmental Study of Golf Course. City Council Agenda Monday, January 24, 2005 Page 2 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Minutes January 10, 2005 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff 1. Finance Department Quarterly Report C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, February 7, 2005 at 7pm Next Council Meeting: (SPECIAL) Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 6pm (Canvass of Special Election and Oath of Office for newly elected Councilmember) Item No: 8.D Meeting Date: January 24, 2005 Type of Business: Consent Agenda City Administrator Review: ________ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6443 Supporting Legislation Permitting Certain Employees of Blaine, Spring Lake Park, and Mounds View to Become Members of the Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Plan The Spring Lake Park / Blaine / Mounds View Fire Department has requested that the Minnesota Legislature pass bills that will allow regular city employees who are also members of the fire department to be eligible to participate in the PERA Police and Fire Fund instead of the PERA Coordinated Fund. Senator Betzold has introduced the legislation as Senate File SF0235 and it will be introduced in the House of Representatives, but I don’t have the author or file number yet. The need for this legislation arises from the increasing difficulty the fire department is having in recruiting and retaining daytime firefighters. Persons employed by private companies are frequently out of the area during the day or their employers are reluctant to allow them to leave repeatedly during the job shift to fight fires. Persons who are already employed by the three cities in other departments are a prime source of firefighters Since they are already city employees, they are most likely enrolled in the PERA Coordinated Fund. Allowing these persons to enroll in the PERA Police and Fire Fund instead will make serving as a volunteer firefighter more appealing. The fire department is currently foreseeing a need in the future to hire full time employees to cover daytime hours. This will be a very expensive undertaking. Encouraging other city employees to join the fire department will postpone the need to hire full time employees. The attached resolution expresses the City of Mounds View’s support for the proposed legislation. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Charles Hansen, Finance Director RESOLUTION NO. 6443 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Supporting Legislation Permitting Certain Employees of Blaine, Spring Lake Park, and Mounds View to Become Members of the Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Plan WHEREAS, the Spring Lake Park – Blaine – Mounds View Fire Department is a non-profit corporation and has provided fire protection and prevention services to the Cities of Spring Lake Park, Blaine, and Mounds View for sixty years; and, WHEREAS, the Spring Lake Park – Blaine – Mounds View Fire Department has and continues to strive for the cost effective delivery of services; and WHEREAS, the ability to attract and retain volunteer firefighters available for daytime workweek response has diminished to critical levels; and WHEREAS, the collaborative efforts between the fire department and the three cities protected has resulted in a limited degree of success in providing day available emergency responders; and WHEREAS, the inclusion of a more generous pension would provide additional incentive to potential candidates thereby allowing the Fire Department to attract and then retain more emergency responders, thus allowing adequate and efficient response. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View declares its support for legislation that would provide for Police and Fire Pension Fund benefits to those individuals who meet all criteria set forth in the legislative proposal, all requirements of the Spring Lake Park – Blaine – Mounds View Fire Department, and all requirements of the City of Mounds View. Adopted this 24th Day of January 2005. ______________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (ATTEST) ______________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 08E Meeting Date: Jan 24, 2005 Type of Business: CA City Administrator Review: _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Barb Benesch, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will expire on December 31, 2005. 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 2004. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2004. The type of license they are applying for follows the company name. Alliance Mechanical Services, Inc. HVAC Renewal Master Gas Fitters HVAC Renewal Pierce Refrigeration HVAC Renewal Piperight Plumbing HVAC New Ron’s Mechanical, Inc. HVAC New T. A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. Asphalt Renewal Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Benesch Item No: 9A Meeting Date: Jan 24, 2005 Type of Business: CB Administrator Review : ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 754, an Ordinance Establishing Various Planning and Development Fees (ROLL CALL VOTE) Introduction: It has been brought to our attention that the planning and development fees charged by the City should be adopted by ordinance. At this time, the only planning or development fee currently present in the City Code or otherwise adopted by ordinance relates to subdivisions, and the fee articulated is not consistent with the fees identified in the 2005 Fee Schedule. For this reason, the attached ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration. Discussion: The attached ordinance establishes a schedule of planning and development related fees. The fees should be considered the minimum fee, as it may be the case that the fee collected is not sufficient to cover the costs associated with the processing of the application. Applicants are made aware that they are responsible for costs above and beyond the application fee and they sign a statement acknowledging this. The ordinance amends Chapter 1202 of the City Code relating to subdivisions by adding text and deleting the specified subdivision fees. A new Appendix E is created which articulates all planning and development fees. From the point of adoption forward, any amendment to the fees would necessitate adoption of an ordinance. Certain fees have been increased which does represent a change from the fee schedule adopted by the City Council in December of 2004. Upon adoption of this ordinance, the corresponding changes would be made to the 2005 Fee Schedule however the fee schedule itself would not need to be reapproved. A public hearing is required for this ordinance and it has been scheduled in conjunction with the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the introduction and first reading of the attached Ordinance 754 which amends and reaffirms various Mounds View planning and development fees. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director ORDINANCE 754 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING FEES FOR PLANNING REQUESTS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 1202 RELATING TO SUBDIVISION FEES The City of Mounds View ordains: SECTION 1. Subdivision 1 of Section 1202.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to Subdivision fees is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: 1202.02: FEES AND CHARGES: Subd. 1. Fees and Deposits: a. Base Fee: To defray administrative and other costs of processing subdivision requests, the following nonrefundable base fees shall be paid at the time an application is filed with the Clerk-Administrator: a fee shall be paid at the time an application is filed consistent with and as identified in Appendix E of this Code. Minor subdivision .......................................................... $150.00 Major subdivision .......................................................... $250.00 b. Additional Deposit: An additional deposit shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in review, research or preparation of materials for said application in excess of the base fee. The applicant shall be given an estimate of these costs in excess of the base fee and shall deposit such amount with the City. An additional deposit shall be paid whenever the Clerk-Administrator determines that additional costs will be incurred beyond those initially estimated. No action on the application shall be taken by the City until such fees and deposits have been paid as required. c. Refunds: Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed. Whenever an application is withdrawn prior to referral to the Planning and Zoning Commission, a refund shall be made of any portion of the deposit that has not been spent or encumbered. b. Excess fees. Applicants are responsible for all costs in excess of the application fee incurred by the City in the processing of the subdivision application. Such excess fees are to be paid upon receipt of statement from the City of Mounds View. Excess fees may include, but shall not be limited to, photocopy costs, staff time, and fees for planning consultants, attorneys and engineers. c. d. Payments of Costs: No official or agent of the City may sign or approve any plat or deed accepting or approving said plat or deeds until any additional costs over and above the deposits have been paid. Ordinance 754 Page 2 SECTION 2. A New “Appendix E” of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled “Planning and Development Fees” is hereby approved with the following planning and development fees as shown. Changes to previously adopted fees are shown with the old fees struck out and the new fees underlined: APPENDIX E PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Administrative Variance *$75 City Code (non-zoning) Text Amendment: $125 $150 Comprehensive Plan Amendment: $250 $350 Conditional Use Permit (CUP): R-1, R-2 $150, all others $325 **$350 Development Review: $125 an acre; min $125, max $750 Interim Use Permit (IUP): R-1, R-2 $150, all others $325 **$350 Major Subdivision $500 Minor Subdivision $250 Planned Unit Development (PUD): $750 Planned Unit Development Amendment: $350 Rezoning: $500 Variance: R-1, R-2 $150; all others $325 $350 Wetland Alteration Permit: R-1, R-2 $150; all others $200 $300 Wetland Buffer Permit: R-1, R-2 $25; all others $100 Zoning Code Text Amendment: $150 $200 * Qualifying applicants denied an administrative variance may apply for formal variance approval with an additional $100 payment rather than paying the full $150 variance fee. ** The fee to amend an approved Conditional Use Permit or Interim Use Permit is the same fee as the CUP or IUP. Ordinance 754 Page 3 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its publication in the official City newspaper. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 10th day of January, 2005. SECOND READING, PUBLIC HEARING and ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th day of January, 2005. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator Approved as to form: ______________________ Mounds View City Attorney (SEAL) Item No: 9B Meeting Date: January 24, 2005 Type of Business: PH & CB Administrator Review : ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Vacate an Excess Utility Easement Associated with the Property Located at 8265 Spring Lake Road (ROLL CALL VOTE) Introduction: Neil and Jill Rudnitski, property owners of 8265 Spring Lake Road, have applied for and were granted a lot line adjustment (Minor Subdivision) for the north property line shared with 8281 Spring Lake Road. In so doing, the house and garage achieve setback conformity. Discussion: The Rudnitski lot is currently encumbered by a utility easement dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. As a result of the minor subdivision approval and the newly dedicated perimeter utility easement, the former easement is no longer necessary and should be vacated. The Mounds View City Charter requires that easement vacations be adopted by ordinance after a duly noticed public hearing. The notice has been published and the public hearing date and time was announced at the City Council’s last meeting on January 10, 2005. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing as required by the City Charter, approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 757, an ordinance vacating an excess utility easement associated with the property located at 8265 Spring Lake Road. One change has been made to the ordinance from the version reviewed by the Council on January 10 by the addition of a summary page to allow for the publication of an ordinance summary rather than the entire ordinance and associated maps. The full ordinance is available on the website and is available for viewing at City Hall. Adoption of the ordinance as drafted is also an approval of the summary and summary publication in the official City newspaper as allowed by Mounds View City Charter Section 3.07. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director ORDINANCE NO. 757 - SUMMARY CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE VACATING EXCESS UTILITY EASEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY AT 8265 SPRING LAKE ROAD The following shall represent a summary of this ordinance and shall be published, along with the ordinance title, in lieu of the whole ordinance as permitted by Mounds View City Charter Section 3.07: Ordinance 757 effectuates the vacation of an excess and unneeded perimeter utility easement associated with the property located at 8265 Spring Lake Road. The City Council, at its meeting on January 10, 2005, authorized a lot line adjustment and a new perimeter easement for this property which renders the original easement duplicative and unnecessary. The Mounds View City Charter requires that easements and other public lands be vacated by ordinance which is the basis for this action. A complete copy of this ordinance and associated maps are available for public viewing at Mounds View City Hall or the information can be accessed on the Mounds View website located at http://www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/ords/757.pdf. ORDINANCE NO. 757 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE VACATING EXCESS UTILITY EASEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY AT 8265 SPRING LAKE ROAD WHEREAS, a request has been submitted to the City of Mounds View for a Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) involving the property located at 8265 Spring Lake Road, legally described as follows: The West 218 Feet of the North 53 Feet of Lot 34 and the South 27 Feet of the West 218 Feet of Lot 35, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, a perpetual easement for utility purposes was dedicated in 1998 over, under and across the following portion of the above described parcel: The North 5.0 feet, the South 10 feet, the West 10 feet and the East 10 feet. WHEREAS, in conjunction with the lot line adjustment approved by the City Council on January 10, 2005, a new easement will be dedicated over, under and across the north five feet and the west, south and east ten feet of the subject property, thereby rendering the former easement duplicative and unnecessary. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby amended to include reference to the following Special Ordinance No. 757. Subd. 1. The City has made a determination that the above-described utility easement no longer serves a public purpose, and as such, it is in the public interest to vacate such easement. Subd. 2. There are no public utilities, buried or otherwise, within the easements to be vacated. Subd. 3. The City Council of the City of Mounds View finds that there is no public interest or purpose served in retaining the original utility easement proposed for vacation as it has been replaced and superseded by the new easement. Subd. 4. The utility easement legally described herein and shown on Exhibit A are hereby vacated, to be replaced with a new perimeter drainage and utility easement as illustrated in Exhibit B, via a separate document. Ordinance 757 Page 2 SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days after its publication. Public Hearing, first reading and introduction by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 10th day of January, 2005. Second reading and adoption by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th day of January, 2005. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ City Attorney (SEAL) EXHIBIT A: Original Survey showing Easements to be vacated 5 Feet 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet 10’ EXHIBIT B: Illustration of New Easement Area to be Dedicated 10’ 10’ 10’ 5’ Item No: Item 9C Meeting Date: Jan 24, 2005 Type of Business: PH & CB Administrator Review : _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 755, an ordinance Amending Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Relating to Building Height Restrictions in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. Introduction: As the City Council is aware, there is an inconsistency in the Zoning Code relating to building heights in Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts. The intent of the PUD district and corresponding provisions is to provide maximum flexibility regarding setbacks, density and design for site-specific projects in return for preservation of open space, environmental considerations and other beneficial public purposes. Discussion: Chapter 1120 of the City Code addresses Planned Unit Developments and provides for the processing of such development types. The stated purpose and intent can be found in the first paragraph of Chapter 1120: The purpose of this Chapter of the Zoning Code is to provide for the grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to development. This Section is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities through conditional use provisions. It is further intended that planned unit developments are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use of parking, maintenance of open space and other similar facilities and a harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. In addition to the opening statement, the Code encourages specific actions and identifies ten criteria for consideration. The last provision communicated is as follows: Subd. 10. To allow variation from the provisions of this Title, including setbacks, height, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc. (1988 Code §40.24) As stated above, the PUD process was intended to provide flexibility regarding building height as it was for other variables. But later in the PUD code, a conflicting passage is present: PUD Amendment Report January 24, 2005 Page 2 Subd. 12. Building Height: Height limitations shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts. This apparent inconsistency was discovered when the City processed the Mermaid Planned Unit Development. There had been some discussion of a taller hotel and there are still plans for a possible expansion. Rather than preclude such an expansion where appropriate, staff supports adding language to the Code which simply reaffirms the intent and purpose of the Code. The proposed amendment was presented to the Mounds View Planning Commission on January 5, 2005. The Commission recognized the need to resolve the inconsistency and adopted a resolution which supported the amendment as present in the attached ordinance. The Commission’s resolution is attached for the Council’s reference. As such, Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adding the following underlined language to Subd. 12 of Section 1120.02: Subd. 12. Building Height: Height limitations shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts unless additional height or stories would serve a better purpose consistent with the stated intent of this Chapter. Recommendation: Review the proposed amendment and direct staff accordingly. If the amendment as proposed is acceptable, a resolution has been drafted for Commission consideration which would be forwarded to the City Council along with the proposed amendment. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Chapter 1120 2. Resolution 781-05 3. Ordinance 755 1120.01 1120.01 CHAPTER 1120 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS SECTION: 1120.01: Purpose and Intent 1120.02: General Requirements and Standards 1120.03: Special Requirements and Standards 1120.04: Procedure 1120.05: Submittals 1120.01: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this Chapter of the Zoning Code is to provide for the grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to development. This Section is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities through conditional use provisions. It is further intended that planned unit developments are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use of parking, maintenance of open space and other similar facilities and a harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. Specifically, it is intended to encourage: Subd. 1. Innovations in residential development to the end that the growing demands for housing of all economic levels may be met by greater variety in tenure, type, design and siting of dwellings and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. Subd. 2. Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and experienced land planners, architects and landscape architects. Subd. 3. More convenience in location of accessory commercial and service area. Subd. 4. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. Subd. 5. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly transition of land from rural to urban uses. 1120.01 1120.02 Subd. 6. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets, thereby lowering housing costs and public investments. Subd. 7. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 8. A more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of zoning and subdivision regulations of the City1. Subd. 9. To give the landowner and developer reasonable assurance of ultimate approval before expending complete design monies while providing City officials with assurances that the project will retain the character envisioned at the time of concurrence. Subd. 10. To allow variation from the provisions of this Title, including setbacks, height, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc. (1988 Code §40.24) 1120.02: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS: Subd. 1. Ownership: An application for PUD approval must be filed by the landowner or jointly by all landowners of the property included in a project. The application and all submissions must be directed to the development of the property as a unified whole. In the case of multiple ownership, the approval of the final plat shall be binding on all owners. Subd. 2. Comprehensive Plan Consistency: The proposed PUD shall be consistent with the adopted City Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 3. Common Open Space: Common open space at least sufficient to meet the minimum requirements established in this Chapter and such complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the PUD shall be provided within the area of the PUD. Subd. 4. Operating and Maintenance Requirements for PUD Common Open Space/Facilities: Whenever common open space or service facilities are provided within the PUD, the PUD plan shall contain provisions to assure the continued operation and maintenance of such open space and service facilities to a predetermined reasonable standard. Common open space and service facilities within a PUD may be placed under the ownership of one (1) or more of the following as approved by the Council: a. Landlord control, where only use by tenants is anticipated. 1 See Title 1200 of this Code for subdivision regulations. 1120.02 1120.02 b. Property Owners' Association; provided, all of the following conditions are met: (1) Prior to the use, occupancy, sale or the execution of contracts for sale of an individual building unit, parcel, tract, townhouse, apartment or common area, a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions or an equivalent document and a set of floor plans, such as specified by Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 515 and 515A, shall be filed with the City Clerk-Administrator, said filing to be made prior to the filings of said declaration of documents or floor plans with the recording officers of Ramsey County, Minnesota. (2) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions or equivalent document shall specify that deeds, leases or documents of conveyance affecting buildings, units, parcels, tracts, townhouses or apartments shall subject said properties to the terms of said declaration. (3) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall provide that an owners' association or corporation shall be formed and that all owners shall be members of said association or corporation which shall maintain all properties and common areas in good repair and which shall assess individual property owners proportionate shares of joint or common costs. This declaration shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. The intent of this requirement is to protect the property values of the individual owner through establishing effective private control. (4) The declaration shall, additionally, amongst other things, provide that in the event the association or corporation fails to maintain properties in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the City or fails to pay taxes or assessments on properties as they become due and in the event the said City incurs any expenses not immediately reimbursed by the association or corporation, then the City shall have the right to assess each property its pro rata share of said expenses. Such assessments, together with interest thereon and costs of collection, shall be a lien on each property against which such assessment is made. (5) Membership must be mandatory for each owner and any successive buyer. (6) The open space restrictions must be permanent and not for a given period of years. (7) The association must be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes and the maintenance of the open space facilities to be deeded to it. 1120.02 1120.02 (8) Property owners must pay their pro rata share of the cost of the association by means of an assessment to be levied by the association which meets the requirements for becoming a lien on the property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. (9) The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changed needs. (10) The bylaws and rules of the association and all covenants and restrictions to be recorded must be approved by the Council prior to the approval of the final PUD plan. Subd. 5. Staging of Common Open Space: When a PUD provides for common open space, the total area of common open space or land escrow security in any stage of development shall, at a minimum, bear the same relationship to the total open space to be provided in the entire PUD as the stages or units completed or under development bear to the entire PUD. Subd. 6. Density: The exact density allowable shall be determined by standards agreed upon between the applicant and the City. Subd. 7. Utilities: In any PUD, all utilities, including telephone, electricity, gas and telecable, shall be installed underground. Subd. 8. Utility Connections: a. Water Connections: Where more than one (1) property is served from the same service line, a shut-off valve must be located in such a way that each unit's service may be shut off by the City, in addition to the normally supplied shut off at the street. b. Sewer Connections: Where more than one (1) unit is served by a sanitary sewer lateral, the requirements of the Building Code 2 shall apply for lengths between ninety feet (90') and three hundred feet (300'). If the length exceeds three hundred feet (300'), provision must be made for a manhole to allow adequate cleaning and maintenance of the lateral. All maintenance and cleaning shall be the responsibility of the property owners' association or owner. Subd. 9. Roadways: a. Private roadways within the project shall have an improved surface of twenty five feet (25') or more in width and shall be so designed as to permit fire trucks to provide protection to each building. Parking shall be prohibited within this twenty five foot (25') roadway. 2 See Chapter 1001 of this Code. 1120.02 1120.03 b. No portion of the required private road system may be used in calculating required off-street parking space. Subd. 10. Landscaping: In any PUD, landscaping shall be provided according to a plan approved by the City Council, which shall include a detailed planting list with sizes and species indicated as part of the final plat. In assessing the landscaping plan, the City Council shall consider the natural features of the particular site, the architectural characteristics of the proposed structures and the overall scheme of the PUD plan. Subd. 11. Public Services: The proposed project shall be served by the City water and sewer system 3, and fire hydrants shall be installed at such locations as required by the Fire Chief to provide fire protection. Subd. 12. Building Height: Height limitations shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts. Subd. 13. Refuse: Provision for trash pick-up shall be made according to a plan approved by the Planning Commission and City Council 4. Subd. 14. Site Improvement Agreement: Prior to the issuance of a building permit as part of the planned unit development, the permit applicant, builder or developer shall execute and deliver to the City Council a site improvement agreement providing for the installation within one (1) year of all of the off-site and on-site improvements as approved by the City Council, secured by a cash escrow or surety bond in an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to the City, to insure the City that such improvements will be actually constructed and installed according to specifications and plans approved by the City as expressed in such agreement. The amount of the bond shall be one and one-half (1-1/2) times the estimated cost of the improvements as determined by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. (1988 Code §40.24) 1120.03: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS: Subd. 1. Residential Planned Unit Development: a. Purpose: It is the intent of this subdivision to establish special requirements for the granting of a conditional use permit for residential PUD projects which are in compliance with the permitted and conditional uses allowed in a specific district, including dwellings, offices and institutional uses of one (1) or more buildings in relation to an overall design and integrated physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures as prescribed in this Title. 3 See Chapters 906 and 907 of this Code. 4 See Chapter 603 of this Code for garbage and rubbish regulations. 1120.03 1120.03 b. Minimum Project Size: The tract of land for which a planned unit development, general residential project is proposed and permit requested shall contain not less than three (3) acres of land. c. Required Frontage: The tract of land for which a project is proposed and permit requested shall have a width of not less than two hundred feet (200') perpendicular to the side lot line or have two hundred feet (200') of frontage on the public right of way, whichever is most restrictive. d. Yards: (1) The front, side and rear yard restrictions at the periphery of the planned unit development site, at a minimum, shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts. (2) No building shall be nearer than its building height to the rear or side property line when such line abuts an R-1 or R-2 use district. (3) No building shall be located less than twenty feet (20') from the back of the curb line along those roadways which are part of the internal street pattern. (4) No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than one-half (1/2) the sum of the building heights of the two (2) buildings. e. Density Bonus: As a consequence of a planned unit development's planned and integrated character, the number of dwelling units allowed within the respective zoning district may be increased by ten percent (10%). The building, parking and similar requirements for these extra units shall be observed in compliance with this Title. f. Townhouses and Condominiums: (1) Minimum unit lot frontage for townhouses shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). (2) Dwelling unit and accessory use requirements are in compliance with the district provisions in which the development is planned. (3) A townhouse shall have not more than two (2) stories. (4) No single townhouse shall contain more than eight (8) dwelling units. (5) No townhouse shall have a single exterior wall longer than eighty feet (80') nor an offset between walls of more than ten feet (10'). 1120.03 1120.03 (6) Townhouse projects shall have a usable open space area equal to four hundred (400) square feet per dwelling. (7) Condominium buildings containing eight (8) units or less and not more than two (2) stories may entail zero (0) lot line construction; provided, that the association covenant provides for it accordingly. Subd. 2. Commercial or Industrial Planned Unit Development: a. Purpose: The intent of this subdivision is to establish special requirements for the granting of a conditional use permit to allow commercial or industrial PUD projects which are in compliance with the permitted and conditional uses allowed in a specific district in one or more buildings in relation to an overall design and an integrated physical plan. b. Minimum Project Size: The tract of land for which a planned unit development, commercial or industrial project is proposed and permit is requested shall contain not less than five (5) acres for commercial and industrial projects. c. Frontage: The tract of land for which a project is proposed and a permit requested shall have a width of not less than two hundred feet (200') perpendicular to the side lot line or have two hundred feet (200') of frontage on the public right of way, whichever is most restrictive. d. Yard: No building shall be nearer than fifty feet (50') to the side or rear property line when such line abuts an R-1, R-2 or R-3 use district. e. Landscaping, Screening and Surfacing: (1) The entire site, other than that taken up by structures or landscaping, shall be surfaced with a material to control dust, drainage and erosion. (2) A drainage system conforming to the comprehensive storm drainage plan5 and subject to approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall be installed. 5 See Chapter 1302 of this Code. 1120.03 1120.04 (3) Development abutting an R-1, R-2 or R-3 District shall be screened and landscaped in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(l) through (5) of this Title. Subd. 3. Mixed Use Planned Unit Development: a. Purpose: The intent of this subdivision is to establish special requirements for the granting of a zoning district amendment to allow mixed use PUD projects which are in compliance with the permitted and conditional uses allowed within the PUD District and in accordance with the provisions and procedures as prescribed in this subdivision. b. Minimum Project Size: The tract of land for which a mixed use PUD is proposed shall not contain less than five (5) acres. c. Frontage: The tract of land for which the project is proposed shall have a width of not less than two hundred feet (200') perpendicular to the side lot line or have two hundred feet (200') of frontage on the public right of way, whichever is most restrictive. d. Yards: Minimum setbacks shall be the same as imposed in the respective PUD use districts. e. Landscaping, Screening and Surfacing: All site treatment shall be consistent with the requirements of subdivisions 1103.08(l) through (5) of this Title. f. Staging of Residential Development: Whenever any mixed PUD is to be developed in stages, the proportion of residential development completed at any stage, when averaged with all previously completed stages, shall not exceed the proportion of residential development planned for the entire mixed PUD. (1988 Code §40.24) 1120.04: PROCEDURE: Subd. 1. Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the City staff. At such conference, the applicant shall be prepared to generally describe applicant's proposal for a PUD. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of and conformity to the provisions of this Title before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. Subd. 2. General Concept Plan: 1120.04 1120.04 a. Purpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing applicant's basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. This concept plan serves as the basis for the public hearing so that the proposal may be publicly considered at an early stage. The following elements of the proposed general concept plan represent the immediately significant elements which the City shall review and for which a decision shall be rendered: (1) Overall maximum PUD density range. (2) General location of major streets and pedestrianways. (3) General location and extent of public and common open space. (4) General location of residential and nonresidential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development. (5) Staging and time schedule of development. (6) Other special criteria for development. b. Process: (1) Developer attends application conference. (2) File application for a conditional use permit or rezoning concurrently with the submission of the general concept plan (at least twenty one (21) days prior to Planning Commission meeting) consisting of the information and submissions required under subdivision 1120.05(l) of this Chapter, General Concept Stage. (3) City staff reviews application, prepares report and recommendations. (4) Planning Commission receives application and report of City staff. (5) Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on the general concept plan. (6) City Council holds a public hearing. (7) City Council reviews all recommendations and approves/denies application(s). 1120.04 1120.04 c. Optional Submission of Development Stage Plan: In cases of single stage PUDs or where the applicant wishes to begin the first stage of a multiple stage PUD immediately, applicant may, at applicant's option, submit development stage plans for the proposed PUD simultaneously with the submission of the general concept plan. In such case, the applicant shall comply with all the provisions of this Chapter applicable to submission of the development stage plan. d. Limitation of General Concept Plan Approval: Unless a development stage plan has been filed within nine (9) months from the date City Council grants general concept plan approval, or in any case where applicant fails to file development stage and final plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this Title and of an approved general concept plan, the approval may be revoked by City Council action. The City Council, at its discretion, may extend the filing deadline for a development stage plan when, for good cause shown, such extension is necessary. Subd. 3. Development Stage: a. Purpose: The purpose of the development stage plan is to provide a specific and particular plan upon which the Planning Commission will base its recommendation to the City Council and with which substantial compliance is necessary for the preparation of the final plan. b. Submission of Development Stage: Upon approval of the general concept plan, the applicant shall file with the City Clerk-Administrator a development stage plan consisting of the information and submissions required under subdivision 1120.05(2) of this Chapter for the entire PUD or for one (1) or more stages thereof in accordance with a staging plan approved as part of the general concept plan. The development stage plan shall refine, implement and be in substantial conformity with the approved general concept plan. c. Review and Action by City Staff and Planning Commission: Upon a receipt of a completed development stage plan, the City Clerk-Administrator shall refer such plan to the appropriate City staff, Planning Commission and other review agencies. d. Process: (1) Developer makes application for subdivision (first phase of PUD) at least twenty one (21) days prior to Planning Commission meeting. (2) Within sixty (60) days of the submission, or such further time as may be agreed to by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall review the development stage and submit a written report and recommendations to the City Council. Such report shall contain the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission with respect to the 1120.04 1120.04 conformity of the development stage plan to the approved general concept plan, with respect to the merit or lack of merit of any departure of the development stage plan from substantial conformity with the concept plan, and with respect to the compliance of the development stage plan with the provisions of this Title and all other applicable Federal, State and local codes and ordinances. (3) Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on the plans. Thereafter, the City Council may grant approval, resubmit the plan to the Planning Commission for further consideration or deny approval of the plan. (4) Upon City Council approval, the City Attorney shall draw up a PUD agreement which stipulates the specific terms and conditions established and approved by the City Council and accepted by the applicant. This agreement shall be signed by the Mayor, the City Clerk-Administrator and the applicant. (5) Where the development stage plan is denied approval, City Council action shall be by resolution setting forth the reasons for its action. A certified copy of the document evidencing City Council action shall be delivered to the applicant. e. Limitation on Detailed Plan Approval: Unless a final plan covering the area designated in the first stage of the development stage plan has been filed within six (6) months from the date City Council grants development stage plan approval or in any case where the applicant fails to file final plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this Title and/or an approved development stage plan, the approval shall expire. The City Council may, at its discretion, extend for not more than one additional period of six (6) months the filing deadline for any final plan when, for good cause shown, such extension is necessary. In any case, where development plan approval expires, the City Council shall forthwith adopt a resolution repealing the general concept plan approval and the development stage plan approval for that portion of the PUD that has not received final plan approval and re-establishing the zoning and other ordinance provisions that would otherwise be applicable. f. Review and Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation of the proposed development stage plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: (1) Adequate property control is provided to protect the individual owner's rights and property values and the public responsibility for own maintenance and upkeep. 1120.04 1120.04 (2) The interior circulation plan plus access from and onto public rights of way does not create congestion or dangers and is adequate for the safety of the project residents and the general public. (3) A sufficient amount of usable open space is provided. (4) The arrangement of buildings, structures and accessory uses does not unreasonably disturb the privacy or property values of the surrounding residential uses. (5) The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding area. (6) The drainage and utility system plans are submitted to and subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. (7) The development schedule insures a logical development of the site which will protect the public interest and conserve land. (8) The development is in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 1010 and Titles 1200 and 1300 of this Code. (9) Dwelling unit and accessory use requirements are in compliance with the district provisions in which the development is planned. Subd. 4. Final Plan: a. Purpose: The final plan is to serve as a complete, thorough and permanent public record of the PUD and the manner in which it is to be developed. It shall incorporate all prior approved plans and all approved modifications thereof resulting from the PUD process. It shall serve in conjunction with other City ordinances as the land use regulation applicable to the PUD. b. Submission of the Final Plan: Upon approval of the development stage plan, the applicant shall file with the City Clerk-Administrator a final plan consisting of the information and submissions required by subdivision 1120.05(3), Final Plan Stage, of this Chapter for the entire PUD or for one (1) or more stages. The final plan is intended only to add detail to and to put in final form the information contained in the general concept plan and the development stage plan and shall conform to the development stage plan in all respects. 1120.04 1120.05 c. Review of Final Plan: The Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall review the final plans to assure their compliance with the general concept and development stage plans and shall require appropriate revisions by the applicant wherever they do not so comply. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall report the findings to the City Clerk-Administrator who shall notify the applicant, in writing, of approval of the final plan. d. Recording of Final Plan: Within ten (10) days of the City Clerk-Administrator's notice of approval, the applicant shall cause the final plan, or such portions thereof as are appropriate, to be recorded with the County Register of Deeds or Register of Titles. e. Building and Other Permits: Upon receiving notice from the City Clerk-Administrator that the approved final plan has been recorded and upon appropriate application of the applicant, building and other permits may be issued to the applicant for development, construction and other work in the area encompassed by the approved final plan; provided, however, that no such permit shall be issued unless the requirements of all applicable codes and ordinances have been satisfied. f. Limitation of Final Plan Approval: Within one year after the approval of a final plan for PUD, or such shorter time as may be established by the approved development schedule, construction shall commence in accordance with such approved plan. Failure to commence construction within such period shall, unless an extension shall have been granted as hereinafter provided, automatically render void the PUD permit and all approvals of the PUD plan. The area encompassed within the PUD shall thereafter be subject to those provisions of the zoning ordinances and other ordinances applicable in the district in which it is located. In such case, the City Council shall forthwith adopt a resolution repealing the PUD permit and PUD approvals and re-establishing the zoning and other ordinance provisions that would otherwise be applicable. g. Annual Review: The Zoning Administrator shall review each planned unit development at least once each year and shall make a report through the Commission to the City Council on the status of the development in each PUD district. If development is not progressing reasonably well, according to schedule, the owner shall be required to submit a statement to the Zoning Administrator setting forth the reasons for the lack of progress. If the City Council finds that the development has not occurred according to the established development schedule or is not otherwise reasonable in the view of the City Council, the City Council may initiate rezoning(s) to remove the planned unit development district. In any event, it shall not be necessary for the City Council to find the rezoning to a PUD district was in error. (1988 Code §40.24) 1120.05: SUBMITTALS: The applicant shall submit a sufficient number of copies, as required by the City Clerk-Administrator, of the following exhibits, analyses and plans during the PUD review process: 1120.05 1120.05 Subd. 1. General Concept Stage: a. General Information: (1) The landowner's name and address and landowner's interest in the subject property. (2) The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner. (3) The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. (4) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interest held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. b. Present Status: (1) The address and legal description of the subject property. (2) The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within five hundred feet (500') of the subject property. (3) A map depicting the existing development of the subject property and all lands within five hundred feet (500') thereof and showing the precise location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet (100') of the subject property. c. Statement: A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve, showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. d. Site Conditions: (1) Where deemed necessary by the City, graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale of one hundred feet (100') shall be submitted and shall contain the following: 1120.05 1120.05 (a) Contours, minimum two foot (2') intervals. (b) Location, type and extent of tree cover. (c) Slope analysis. (d) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands and streams and flood plains within three hundred feet (300') of the subject property. (e) Significant rock outcropping. (f) Existing drainage patterns. (g) Vistas and significant views. (h) Soil conditions as they affect development. (2) All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan to allow easy cross-reference. The use of overlays is recommended for clear reference. e. Schematic Drawing: Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept, including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. f. A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area which shall include at least the following: (1) Area devoted to residential uses. (2) Area devoted to residential use by building type. (3) Area devoted to common open space. (4) Area devoted to public open space. (5) Approximate area devoted to streets. (6) Approximate area, and potential floor area, devoted to commercial uses. (7) Approximate area, and potential floor area, devoted to industrial or office uses. 1120.05 1120.05 g. Stages: When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such stage and the overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. h. Open Space: When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities shall be submitted. If it is proposed that such open space be owned and/or maintained by any entity other than a governmental authority, copies of the proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws of such entity shall be submitted during the development stage. i. Restrictive Covenants: General intents of any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. j. Feasibility Study: Where deemed necessary, a market feasibility study, including an analysis of the proposal's economic impact on the City shall be submitted. Subd. 2. Development Stage: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implementation of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall include, but not be limited to: a. Zoning classification required for development stage submission and any other public decision necessary for implementation of the proposed plan. b. Preliminary plans, drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100') (or scale requested by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer) containing at least the following information: (1) Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the County wherein the subject property is situated). (2) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the property. (3) The location, size, use and arrangement including height in stones and feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area, or proposed building, and existing buildings which will remain, if any. 1120.05 1120.05 (4) The location, dimensions and number of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles and all other circulation elements, including bike and pedestrian and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. (5) Location, designation and total area of all common open space. (6) Proposed lots and blocks, if any, and numbering system. (7) The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent properties. (8) Preliminary sketches of proposed landscaping. (9) General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD. (10) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or City Council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. c. An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. d. A tabulation indicating the approximate gross square footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor space by type of activity (e.g., drugstore, dry cleaning, supermarket). e. Preliminary architectural plans indicating use, floor plan, elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed buildings, including mobile homes. f. A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout, design and purpose of all streets, easements, rights of way, utility lines and facilities, lots, block, public and common open space, general landscaping plan, structures, including mobile homes, and uses. g. Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topography and natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. h. A preliminary and final plat prepared by a land surveyor, duly registered in the State in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, chapter 505, which shall contain a notarized certification by such surveyor that the plat represents a survey made by the surveyor and that the monuments shown herein exist as located and that all dimensions are correct, as required by Section 505.03, subdivision 1, Minnesota Statutes Annotated, and a notarized certification by owner or owners of the adoption of the plat and the dedication of streets and other public areas as required by Section 505.03, subdivision 1, Minnesota Statutes Annotated. 1120.05 1120.05 i. A soil erosion control plan approved by the appropriate watershed districts, Department of Natural Resources or any other agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. j. A statement summarizing all changes which have been made in any document, plan data or information previously submitted, together with revised copies of any such document, plan or data. k. Such other and further information as the Planning Commission, Director of Public Works/City Engineer or City Council shall find necessary to a full consideration of the entire proposed PUD or any stage thereof. 1. The Planning Commission may, by a written order, excuse any applicant from submitting any specific item of information or document required herein which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal for PUD approval. Subd. 3. Final Plat Stage: After approval of a general concept plan for the PUD and approval of a development stage plan for a Section of the proposed PUD, the applicant will submit the following material for review by City staff prior to issuance of a building or other permits: a. A detailed landscaping plan. b. Proof of recording any easements and restrictive covenants prior to the sale of any land or dwelling unit within the PUD and of the establishment and activation of any entity that is to be responsible for the management and maintenance of any public or common open space or service facility. c. All certificates, seals and signatures required for the dedication of land and recordation of documents. d. Final architectural working drawings of all structures. e. Final engineering plans and specifications for streets, utilities and other public improvements, together with a community/developer agreement for the installation of such improvements and financial guarantees for the completion of such improvements. f. Any other plan, agreements or specifications necessary for the City staff to review the proposed construction. (1988 Code §40.24) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 781-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CODE AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS WHEREAS, the current City Code regulations pertaining to Planned Unit Developments contains an inconsistency regarding building height; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed Chapter 1120 of the Zoning Code and has determined an amendment should be adopted to clarify the height requirements consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the PUD Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Zoning Code substantially similar to the following: Section 1120.02: Subd. 12. Building Height: Height limitations shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts unless additional height or stories would serve a better purpose consistent with the intent of this Chapter. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5th day of January, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Dev. Director (SEAL) ORDINANCE 755 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1120.02 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Subdivision 12 of Section 1120.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to Planned Unit Development (PUD) standards and requirements is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined: Subd. 12. Building Height: Height limitations shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts, unless the City Council determines additional height or stories would serve a better purpose consistent with the stated intent of this Chapter. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its publication in the official City newspaper. PUBLIC HEARING, INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 24th day of January, 2005. SECOND READING and ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 14th day of February, 2005. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator Approved as to form: ______________________ Mounds View City Attorney (SEAL) Item No: 9D Meeting Date: Jan 24, 2004 Type of Business: PH & CB Administrator Review: ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 756, an Ordinance Amending Sections of the Mounds View City Code Pertaining to Non-Conforming Driveways, Driveway Setbacks and Curb Cuts (ROLL CALL VOTE) Introduction: On September 13, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance 752, an ordinance striking language from the City Code that had allowed for driveway setbacks up to up one foot from a property line in single and two-family residential districts. In addition to eliminating the one- foot setback, the ordinance established a mechanism to allow for administrative variances for driveways that had been previously granted a one-foot setback. The language adopted by the Council was the same language recommended by the Planning Commission. During the review and consideration of Ordinance 752, it became apparent that the regulations for driveways and curb cuts were confusing and difficult to administer due to the various amendments that had been adopted over the years. The Planning Commission reviewed the pertinent sections of Code and suggested amendments as articulated in the attached Ordinance 756. The City Council reviewed the proposed amendments on January 10, 2005, approving the first reading and introduction of the attached ordinance. Discussion: The primary regulation of driveways occurs in Section 1104.01, subdivision 4b, with the language extending “protection” to nonconforming driveways and curb cuts as follows: (2) Driveways in existence as of the date of enactment of ordinance 620 and which do not conform to the provisions of this subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 902.02, subdivision 2. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 642, 1-10-00) Subpart 2 above indicates that nonconforming permanent driveways installed prior to 1998 may remain in place, may be altered, expanded or replaced so long as the driveway or curb cut does not pose a significant public safety hazard. Driveways installed after that date have no such extra protection. Staff’s position, which was supported by the Planning Commission, is if the driveway or curb cut can be made conforming in association with a street improvement project or a private driveway replacement project, why preclude that as a possibility? Driveway Report January 24, 2005 Page 2 As stated at the January 10th meeting of the City Council, the Planning Commission made it clear that considerations would need to be provided to permit a property owner to make certain repairs and limited improvements without instigating a complete replacement. Two examples were raised which proposed Ordinance 756 addresses: 1. A property owner with a partial concrete driveway wishes to extend or expand the concrete without having to improve the whole length of the driveway. 2. A property owner with a nonconforming driveway wishes to install a “Tee” or perpendicular extension without having to make the whole driveway conforming. In both of these examples, the property owner seeks to make partial improvements to the driveway. The attached amendments would allow for this, as the intent is to not preclude property owners from making improvements, but rather to encourage bringing the driveway or curb cut into compliance if possible. Only under a total driveway reconstruction scenario or street improvement project would the driveway or curb cut need to be brought into compliance—and only then if possible. If it is not possible to achieve compliance or to reduce the extent of the nonconformity, the Director of Public Works and/or the Director of Community Development may permit the nonconformity to remain unaltered. If the noncompliance can be corrected but the property owner disagrees, he or she may appeal the decision to the City Council, who would either rule in support of Staff’s decision or in favor of the resident. If the Council rules in favor of staff, the aggrieved property owner would have the right to apply for a variance to remedy the situation. Summary: The current language pertaining to non-conforming curb cuts and driveways is confusing and difficult to administer. Allowing some nonconforming conditions to persist without any regard for its justification makes little sense. The intent of the existing code was to allow nonconforming uses to remain so long as they were installed prior to a date certain five years ago and did not pose any hazard or danger. Staff and the Planning Commission feel the nonconformities should be corrected unless it would be impractical or cause undue hardship in the process. Ordinance 756, introduced and given first reading on January 10, 2005, is available for second reading and adoption this evening, January 24, 2005, upon conclusion of the duly noticed public hearing. No changes have been made to attached ordinance since it was given first reading on January 10. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Ordinance 756 ORDINANCE 756 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 902, 1104, 1121 AND 1125 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NONCONFORMING DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 902.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to driveways is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out:: 902.02: PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Subd. 1. Driveway Construction: No person shall construct a driveway without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the provisions set forth in Chapter 1006 of this Code. (1988 Code §44.05) (Ord. 640, 10-11-99) Subd. 2. Existing, Non-conforming Driveways: Permanent-surfaced driveways which do not conform to the City Code as of October 11, 1999, may be rebuilt, reconstructed or replaced in the same manner, fashion and location as before unless the location of said driveway poses a significant public safety hazard. If a requested building permit is denied due to the presence of such a public safety hazard, the applicant may appeal the decision in writing to the City Council. For the purpose of this subdivision, a permanent surface shall mean bituminous, concrete or brick. (Ord. 640, 10-11-99) Consistent with the provisions of Chapter 1123, driveways that do not conform to the requirements of the City Code may not be replaced or reconstructed without bringing them into compliance. (Minor maintenance and alterations may be permitted.) Driveways which cannot be brought into compliance without undue hardship, as determined by the Director of Community Development, may be improved, replaced or rebuilt, however, in no case may the extent of the nonconformity increase as a result. If a requested permit is denied due to noncompliance, the property owner may appeal the decision in writing to the City Council. Ord. 756 Page 2 SECTION 2. Subdivision 4b(2) of Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to driveways is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: (2) Driveways in existence as of the date of enactment of ordinance 620 and which do not conform to the provisions of this Chapter subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section 902.02, subdivision 2. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98; Ord. 642, 1-10-00) SECTION 3. Subdivision 4c(4) of Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to parking lots is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: (4) Parking areas in existence as of the date of enactment of Ordinance 620 and which do not conform to the provisions of this Chapter subsection, may continue subject to the provisions of Section Chapter 1123.02, subdivision 1b. (Ord. 620, 7-27-98) SECTION 4. Subdivision 5f of Section 1121.09 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to curb cuts is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: 5f. Curb cuts in existence as of 10/11/99 that do not conform to this subdivision may remain in existence unless deemed by the Director of Public Works to be a danger or public safety hazard. Notices to abandon a curb cut may be appealed in writing to the City Council. 5g. In conjunction with street improvement projects or in conjunction with individual driveway replacement projects, nonconforming curb cuts shall be made conforming to whatever extent practicable. If, in the opinion of the directors of public works and community development, a nonconforming curb cut cannot be made conforming without undue hardship or disruption to the property, the curb cut may remain in existence, unchanged. Decisions regarding curb cuts may be appealed in writing to the City Council. SECTION 5. Subdivision 6 of Section 1125.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to Administrative Variances is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined and deletions struck out: a. Types: Residents Property owners seeking relief from the Zoning Code may request an administrative variance, provided that the property is zoned R-1 or R-2 and either of the following is applicable: (1) The property is zoned R-1 or R-2; and (2) The request concerns setbacks; and (3) Tthe variance amount is within twenty-five (25) percent of code requirements, except as provided in Subd. 6a(5) below; and (4) Aapproval of the variance does not result in a setback of less than five (5) feet, except as provided in Subd. 6a(5) below; and (2) (5) The request is related to a pre-existing, non-conforming driveway or curb cut. was previously permitted at a setback up to one-foot from the property line. Ord. 756 Page 3 SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its publication in the official City newspaper. PUBLIC HEARING, INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 10th of January, 2005. SECOND READING and ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 24th day of January, 2005. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator Approved as to form: ______________________ Mounds View City Attorney (SEAL) Item No: 9E Meeting Date: 01/24/05 Type of Business: CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6429 Approving the 2004-2005 LELS Police Officers Labor Contract This item will be discussed in executive session at 6:00 pm preceding the EDA meeting on January 24th. The Union and City staff are currently reviewing final drafts of the contract for consideration. Item No: 09F Meeting Date: January 24, 2005 Type of Business: CB City Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree M. Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6438 Ratifying the Mounds View Election Judges for the 2005 Special Election State Law requires that election judges for all elections be appointed for the municipal governing body. Resolution 6438 contains a finalized list of election judges for the 2005 Special Election on Tuesday, February 1, 2005. Recommendation: Approve the appointment of election judges for the 2005 Special Election. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane RESOLUTION 6438 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE 2005 SPECIAL ELECTION WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is required by law to hold a Special Election on Tuesday, February 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, all proposed election judges listed on the attached sheet have met all of the State qualifications for the position of election judge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ratify the appointments of the individuals listed in the attachment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View authorizes the City Clerk-Administrator to appoint additional election judges should there be a need. Adopted this 24th day of January, 2005. ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) 2005 ELECTION JUDGES 2005 SPECIAL ELECTION NAME Desaree Crane (Head Judge) Janet Schuldt (Head Judge) John Gunther (Head Judge) Susan Mitchell (Head Judge) Anita Thompson Ilene Syverson Marcia Rosenburg Patricia Robinson Sherril Carlson Carol York Barbara Skrbich Lenny Sandell Jeanine Stage Cheryl Ahlstrom Arlene Werdien Coral Jacobson Glen Partridge Lillian Christ Don Hodges Mary Pearson Sharon Croon Item No: 9G Meeting Date: January 24, 2005 Type of Business: CB City Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant to Administration Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6439 Granting the Pinewood Elementary PTA a One Day Permit to a Raffle (Charitable Gambling) at the Pinewood Elementary School on March 6, 2005. The Pinewood Elementary PTA would like to hold a Raffle event at the Pinewood Elementary School on March 6, 2005. First Prize is 300.00; Second Prize is a Schwin Bike and Third Prize is $100.00. Proceeds go towards the Pinewood Elementary PTA. The State Gambling Board has indicated that it does not see a conflict in allowing a raffle at the Pinewood Elementary School as long as the municipality is agreeable. Attached is a LG 220 Application for Exempt Permit from the State of Minnesota for lawful gambling, and exempt status from the Department of Revenue. Council requested Staff to also look into Merrick, Inc., regarding their activities within the Trade area. Merrick, Inc., will be making a presentation to City Council on Monday, February 14, 2005. Recommendation: Approve attached Resolution 6439. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane RESOLUTION NO. 6439 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION GRANTING THE PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY PTA A ONE DAY PERMIT TO CONDUCT A RAFFLE AT PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the Pinewood Elementary PTA has requested that the Council allow them to conduct charitable gambling at Pinewood Elementary School on March 6, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Gambling Control Board requires that the local unit of government (city of county) pass a resolution specifically approving or denying requests to conduct charitable gambling/raffles; and WHEREAS, the Pinewood Elementary PTA is in compliance with all requirements of the Mounds View Municipal Code with regard to charitable gambling regulations. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council does hereby authorize the Pinewood Elementary PTA to conduct a one-day Raffle at Pinewood Elementary School on March 6, 2005. Adopted this 24th day of January, 2005. ______________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 9I Meeting Date: January 24, 2005 Type of Business: CB Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Mary Burg Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6444, Purchase of Advertising from Prime Advertising and Design in the Blaine Community Resource & Residents’ Guide Background In the competitive golf environment, The Bridges of Mounds Views exceeds many other facilities in its golf niche. Through a sound marketing strategy, The Bridges of Mounds View will maintain its competitive advantage over other executive golf courses. The continued marketing of the golf course is implicit to keep the course a viable interest. Discussion Entering the new golfing season a variety of new and innovative options are sought for the promotion of The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course and Learning Center. The opportunities to place the marketing information in areas of growth are key to meet the continued goals of the golf facility. Addition to the operation of the grounds in the highest of quality, maintaining leadership in the twin cities by The Bridges requires promotion. The current environment or growth in the housing market directs the chosen marketing strategy. Sound marketing practices are implicit to keep the golf course competitive. Prime Advertising and Design is developing Blaine Community Resource and Residents’ Guide. The guide will be delivered vie US postal service placing the information in each home and business in the City of Blaine. New or prospective homeowners throughout the year will also be receiving the guide. The advertisement opportunity is a very good value. This ad offers a large number of pieces and a lengthy time of the distribution. This ad will be ¼ page four-color copy. Fifty thousand pieces will be printed and distributed. The cost is approximately $00.02 per copy. The price includes direct mail and distribution through local realtors. The course proximity to the developing Blaine makes it a prime target market. City Administrator’s Note: The proposed Medtronic redevelopment of the course (if it proceeds) will allow the golf course to stay open through Labor Day of 2005. This allows the City to utilize the course for the major part of the season. All league play is also completed by that date. Recommendation The City Council approves resolution 6444 for the purchase of advertising from Prime Advertising and Design in the Blaine Community Resource and Residents’ Guide in the amount of $1,239.00 Respectfully submitted, Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager RESOLUTION NO. 6444 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING GOLF COURSE ADVERTIZING WITH PRIME ADVERTIZING AND DESIGN WHEREAS, The Bridges of Mounds View is in operation for the 2005 season, and as part of the City’s’ budget, money is designated toward the marketing of the golf course; and WHEREAS, the marketing of the golf course is key tool in its continued success, and the strategy incorporates a variety methods; and WHEREAS, the Prime Advertising and Design ad placed in the Blaine Community Resource and Residents’ Guide assists to meet the marketing goals; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Mounds View, approves resolution 6444 for the purchase of advertising from Prime Advertising and Design in the premiere addition of the Blaine Community Resource and Residents’ Guide in the amount of $1,239.00 Adopted this 24th day of January, 2005. ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No: 9J Meeting Date: January 24, 2005 Type of Business: CB Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Mary Burg Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6417, Purchase of Advertising with JS Paluch Company Background In the competitive golf environment, The Bridges of Mounds Views exceeds many other facilities in its golf niche. Through a sound marketing strategy, The Bridges of Mounds View will maintain its competitive advantage over other executive golf courses. The continued marketing of the golf course is implicit to keep the course a viable interest. Discussion Entering the new golfing season a variety of new and innovative options are sought for the promotion of The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course and Learning Center. The opportunities to place the marketing information in areas of growth are key to meet the continued goals of the golf facility. Addition to the operation of the grounds in the highest of quality, maintaining leadership in the twin cities by The Bridges requires promotion. The current environment or growth in the housing market directs the chosen marketing strategy. Sound marketing practices are implicit to keep the golf course competitive. The JS Paluch Company is a longtime publisher of area church bulletins. The bulletins reach people on the weekend, and are known to be a reference though the week. Weekends are a particular time in which the golf course wishes to attract new and repeat patrons to the facility. New golf events and individual golfers would be the expectation of the marketing through this venue. The advertisement opportunity is a very good value. Each of the churches proximity to the to the golf course is within the five mile radius. The ad is a ½ “ X 2” space. The cost per ad is $6.33 per week. The campaign would run through the season with a total of approximately seventy-eight ads in three locations for approximately twenty-six weeks. A multi-week, multiple bulletin discount is included in the pricing. There is a benefit to the repetitive nature of a term. A minimum of four weeks contract is required. City Administrator’s Note: The proposed Medtronic redevelopment of the course (if it proceeds) will allow the golf course to stay open through Labor Day of 2005. This allows the City to utilize the course for the major part of the season. All league play is also completed by that date. Recommendation The City Council approval of resolution 6417 for the purchase of advertising from JS Paluch Company in the amount of $494.00. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Mary Burg, Golf Course Manager RESOLUTION NO. 6417 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING GOLF COURSE ADVERTIZING WITH JS PALUCH COMPANY WHEREAS, The Bridges of Mounds View is in operation for the 2005 season, and as part of the City’s’ budget, money is designated toward the marketing of the golf course; and WHEREAS, the marketing of the golf course is key tool in its continued success, and the strategy incorporates a variety methods; and WHEREAS, the JS Paluch Company advertising meet the marketing goals; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Mounds View, approves resolution 6417 for the purchase of advertising from JS Paluch in the amount of $494.00 Adopted this 24th day of January, 2005. ________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator (seal) Item No: 9 K Meeting Date: 1/24/05 Type of Business: Council Business Administrator Review: _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Request from Past Employee to Join the Retirement Health Savings Plan Background: On April 12, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution 6228 adopting the City’s participation in a retirement health savings (RHS) program as an additional benefit for the employees. The International City Manager’s Association (ICMA) Retirement Corporation was selected as the administrator of the plan. On October 25, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution 6352 adding specific provisions to the Personnel Policy to govern use of the RHS by non-union employees. The same provisions are being added to union contracts as they come up for renewal. This plan provides a savings to the City and a long-term benefit to employees. For example, a long time employee who is retiring and is eligible for a $10,000 cash payout of unused vacation and sick time will cost the City $10,765 because of the 7.65% employer’s share of the social security tax. Additionally, the employee will receive substantially less than $10,000 because they will pay income taxes and the employee’s share of the social security tax. If the employee deposits the sick with the City to pay future group health insurance premiums, the employee and the city are still liable for social security tax if the employee was subject to social security tax when employed. If the same employee were to elect to put the $10,000 into the RHS, it would cost the City $10,000, because the social security tax wouldn’t have to be paid, thereby saving the City $765. In addition, the employee would get $10,000 into their account because they wouldn’t have to pay social security or income taxes. The RHS allows employees to accumulate assets on a tax-free basis to pay for medical expenses of the employee, their spouse, and their dependents after the employee retires. Assets are in most cases put into the plan tax-free, accumulate earnings on a tax-deferred basis, and are withdrawn tax free if used for qualified medical benefits. Discussion: One of the employees who retired before the RHS was approved has requested that past retirees also be allowed to participate in the RHS. This would be for employees who elected at the time of their retirement to deposit their sick leave balance with the City and have 65% of the value of the sick leave placed in an account that would be used to continue to pay the premiums for them to continue in the employee group health insurance policy. The legal experts at ICMA have agreed that this may be allowed with certain conditions. Normally, no contributions to the RHS are allowed after an employee separates from employment. In order for the past employees to be allowed to contribute, the contribution must be treated as an employer contribution, not an employee contribution. Also, all past employees with balances remaining in their accounts must switch to the RHS. Four past employees still have remaining balances in their accounts to pay for continued health insurance premiums. Their balances as of January 14, 2005 are as follows: Tim Ramacher $580.30 Bill Hanson $8,380.74 David Brick $12,594.46 Reed Krogh $32,746.06 Mr. Ramacher’s balance will be used up before any change could be made. The other three will be affected by this conversion to RHS, if it is approved by the City Council. Before going further with the idea, I would like to contact the three individuals and make sure that at least two of them are in favor. I would like to able to tell them the conditions under which the conversion to RHS would be made. Recommendation: The issues that need a decision by the City Council include the following: 1. Is the Council willing to allow the past retirees to convert to RHS? 2. The balances above are the remainders from a conversion at the rate of 65% of sick time. Is the Council willing to allow those balances (minus any premiums paid before the conversion) to go into RHS or must the balances be recalculated on the basis of 50% of sick leave? 3. If one of the retirees isn’t interested, is the Council willing to consider means to compel these employees to convert since the ICMA has determined that it must be the entire group or no one? If the City Council and the past retirees are in favor of converting to the RHS, I will bring a resolution to a future City Council meeting to officially approve it. ___________________________ Charles Hansen, Finance Director Item No. 9L Meeting Date: January 24, 2005 Type of Business: Council Business Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Charles Hansen, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6445 Amending the 2005 General Fund and Economic Development Authority Fund Budgets The City has followed the practice of allocating certain percentages of payroll costs of the City Administrator (10%), Finance Director (10%), and Community Development Director (15%) to the budget of the Economic Development Authority (EDA). These percentages are loaded into the payroll system and the costs are automatically allocated to the EDA. Last fall, Ehlers & Associates Inc., the City’s financial advisor for tax increment financing (TIF), advised us that this procedure probably would not stand up in the event of a TIF audit by the Office of the State Auditor. The State Auditor expects to see timesheets with actual hours recorded for specific meetings attended or work on specific projects. We feel the percentages used are reasonable and reflect the total effort devoted to TIF matters. However, it is problematic to record all that time on the timesheet. In my own case, I spend substantial time supervising accounts payable, payroll, insurance, investments, budget and financial reporting. TIF matters benefit from all of these efforts. But to put it on my time sheet would mean record 10% of many small slices of time spent on a succession of activities each day. To alleviate this problem and head off a possible problem in a future TIF audit, I would like to reduce the percentages of staff time we allocate to the EDA. This would make it easier to justify the costs with time spent in larger blocks of time in meetings or working on larger projects. We would still need to record time spent on TIF, but the amounts would be more attainable. Doing this will shift personnel costs from the EDA to the General Fund in the 2005 budget. To neutralize the effect on the budget, I propose to shift another cost from the General Fund to the EDA. This would be the Housing Resource Center membership fee of $10,700 that is currently in the Community Development Budget in the General Fund. Ehlers has agreed that the Housing Resource Center membership fee is an allowable TIF expense. Percentages of staff time allocated to the EDA would be changed as follows: City Administrator: reduced from 10% to 7% Finance Director: reduced from 10% to 7% Community Development Director: reduced from 15% to 10.6% Percentages allocated to respective departments in the General Fund would be increased. Recommendation: This proposal would be neutral in its bottom line effect on the budget and would lessen the possible adverse impact of a future TIF audit by the Office of the State Auditor. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution 6445 to amend the 2005 budgets of the General Fund and the Economic Development Authority Fund. Respectfully Submitted, Charles Hansen RESOLUTION NO. 6445 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AMENDING THE 2005 GENERAL FUND AND ECOMOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND BUDGETS WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution 6403 on December 13, 2004 adopting budgets for the year 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the budget so as to better document allowable Tax Increment Financing expenses in the Economic Development Authority Fund. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts the following amendments to the 2005 Budget: General Fund: Office of the City Administrator - Personnel Increase $3,402 Finance Department – Personnel Increase $2,974 Community Development Dept. – Personnel Increase $4,324 Community Development Dept. – Contractual Decrease $10,700 Economic Development Authority Fund: Personnel Decrease $10,700 Contractual Increase $10,700 Adopted this 24th day of January 2005. ATTEST: Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL) Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, and Flaherty 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, January 10, 2005 City Council Agenda. City Administrator Ulrich stated he would like to postpone Item 9N until January 24th to allow staff to do some additional inquiry into the bidding process and gather some more information. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, January 10, 2005 agenda as amended. Ayes –4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUISNESS A. Resolution of Appreciation for Jerry Linke Mayor Marty read aloud the Resolution of Appreciation and presented it to former Mayor Jerry Linke. Former Mayor Linke stated that it had been a pleasure working with the Council that he had had. He stated that there had been very little animosity between the members, and that they had talked and discussed things. He thanked the Council for their help while he was Mayor. Mayor Marty thanked Mayor Linke for his service. B. Senator Don Betzold and Representative Connie Bernardy – Update on Legislative Session. Senator Betzold stated that the legislature had started Tuesday and would go until midnight of May 23rd. He stated that the main item of business would be to balance the State’s budget. He stated that the Governor would make his proposal in about two weeks, and the legislature would Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 come forward with its proposals, and hopefully it will be done by the time they adjourn. He stated he didn’t believe there was any hope of restoring the LGA cuts that had had a major impact on the City of Mounds View. He stated that other issues before them included crime prevention, jobs, transportation, methamphetamines, health care costs, and education. He stated he had introduced the bill for the covenant clause on the golf course property. He stated he was on the Pension Commission, and that there was an issue that the Blaine/Mounds View/Spring Lake Park Fire Department was bringing forward to allow some of the city employees the opportunity to be a volunteer firefighter and be able to use pension credit for PERA as part of their volunteer service because of the shortage of firefighters. Representative Bernardy stated her home phone number is 763-571-0015, and she wanted the public to know that she was accessible. She stated that on February 3rd there would be a town meeting with her and Senator Betzold at the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m., and everyone was invited to express their ideas and have any questions answered. 6. PUBLIC INPUT Dave Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that the figures stated in the article by Jim Manthis were confusing and he didn’t understand where he got them. He asked the Council if they could comment on them. Mayor Marty stated that some of the information in the article was close to factual, but some wasn’t. City Administrator Ulrich stated that in the next newsletter they were going to present a more balanced perspective of the redevelopment options for the golf course for the community. Police Chief Sommer asked that citizens inform the police department directly when they notice a problem with damage to property. He stated that they had charged three juveniles with criminal damage to property for puncturing five to ten inflatable lawn ornaments. Carol Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, stated it was atrocious that the citizens of Mounds View were going to have a 27 ½ percent increase in property taxes this year, after having double digit increases in taxes since 2002. She stated she had never received more than a 5 to 7 percent merit increase at her job, even with outstanding reviews. She asked if building the new fire station in Blaine would cause another double-digit tax increase for 2006. Mayor Marty applauded Ms. Mueller for her comments at the debate, and he asked Finance Director Hansen to comment on the reason for the tax increase. Finance Director Hansen stated that in 2004 the State cut aid to the City of Mounds View in the amount of $480,000, and in 2005 they cut the aid in the amount of $300,000. He stated the addition of two police officers had added over $100,000 to the budget. He stated that for the 2005 budget, they have the first year of debt service for the street bond levy in the amount of $187,000. He stated that those four items total almost $1.1 million. He stated, regarding the fire Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 station in Blaine, that it’s an $8.4 million bond issue to be spread amongst the three cities, and his guess was that Mounds View’s share of the debt service would be a little less than $100,000 per year. Mayor Marty stated that the citizens had decided by ballot to hire the two police officers, and it was not a decision that was made by the City Council. He stated that 40 miles of street needed replacement, and they could no longer be repaired. He stated that without streets, sewer, and water, the infrastructure would crumble. Council Member Gunn stated that another new bill is the waste water service, and the bill this time had been $54,567.16. Mayor Marty stated that the waste water bill was the reason for the sump pump inspections that were occurring within the City. Public Works Director Lee stated that two years ago a federal mandate came across to cities with populations over 10,000 people that required them to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, which required the City to upgrade and service all of their storm sewer systems, and that would be a cost to the City over the years. Former Mayor Jerry Linke stated that he had tried to annex the City to Anoka County awhile back, which would have reduced their property taxes 25 percent, but the had been unable to do so. He stated that Ramsey County seems to be the guinea pig for the legislature, and if they want to try something new, Ramsey County gets it, and Mounds View gets the bill. He stated that Mounds View is trying to find services to cut to lower taxes. Mayor Marty stated that the reason North Oaks has lower taxes is because of their association fees. He stated that St. Paul residents often have hidden fees for different items rather than tax hikes. 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS. Council Member Stigney asked why there were two memberships listed on page 29, Items 115228, for the North Metro Mayors Association. Finance Director Hansen stated that it was listed twice because it is a 50 percent cost to the General Fund and 50 percent cost to the EDA fund, and it was really only one membership. Council Member Flaherty asked if the Decision Resources bill at page 8, Item 115084, was for one-half of the cost of the survey up front. City Administrator Ulrich stated that that was correct. Council Member Flaherty asked why there was a discrepancy for the fuel in the amount of $2,461 at page 9, second item down. Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 Finance Director Hansen stated that that was for the police department, and they have more vehicles and do more driving than the other departments, so their gas bill is higher. Council Member Stigney stated that regarding the Decision Resources bill, he thought they could save the $10,200 on that, and he would like that item pulled. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To approve Just and Correct Claims, except for the Decision Resources bill, as presented. Ayes-4 Nays -0 Motion carried MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Marty. To approve the Decision Resources bill, Check No. 115084. Council Member Stigney stated that when they are asking residents to pay a 27 ½ percent increase in taxes, he felt there was a less expensive way to accommodate this rather than spending $10,200 for it. Mayor Marty stated that there had been a survey sent for Parks and Recreation this summer, and they had only received 36 responses back. He stated that in reading past surveys, he had found a wealth of information. Council Member Stigney stated he didn’t feel this was a cost effective way to do the survey, and it would be cheaper to mail it out. Council Member Flaherty stated he would like to use this survey to get more input from the citizens. Stan Haugen, 8439 Knollwood Drive, stated that it would cost each citizen in Mounds View 75 cents for the survey. Ayes -3 Nays-1(Stigney) Motion carried. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Stigney requested to pull Items C and E. Mayor Marty requested to pull Item D. A. Licenses for Approval B. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, January 24, 2005 at 7:05 PM to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 754, an Ordinance Establishing Planning and Development Fees (Ericson) C. Resolution 6420 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Tractor for the Parks Division Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 D. Resolution 6430 Authorizing the Expenditure of Street Sign Maintenance Funds for the Conversion of Traffic Signal Lights to LED E. Resolution 6422 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement ½ Ton Pick Up Truck F. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, January 24, 2005 at 7:10 PM to Consider the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 757, an Ordinance Vacating an Unused and Excess Utility Easement Associated with 8265 Spring Lake Road (Ericson) G. Cancel a Public Hearing for January 24, 2005 at 7:05 PM for the Capital Improvement Plan and Authorization for the Future Sale of CIP Bonds for the Fire Station and Equipment and reschedule the Public Hearing for February 14, 2005 at 7:05 PM. H. Cancel a Public Hearing for January 24, 2005 at 7:10 PM for the Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Setting Storm Water Management Fees for Service in 2005 and reschedule the Public Hearing for February 14, 2005 at 7:10 PM. I. Cancel a Public Hearing for January 24, 2005 at 7:15 PM for the Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Setting Street Light Utility Rates for Service in 2005 and reschedule the Public Hearing for February 14, 2005 at 7:15 PM. J. Resolution 6427 Approving a Contract with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for Claims Administration. K. Set a Public Hearing for January 24, 2005 at 7:15 PM for the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 755, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Zoning Code relating to Building Heights in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District (Ericson) L. Set a Public Hearing for January 24, 2005 at 7:20 PM for the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 756, an Ordinance Amending the Mounds View Municipal Code related to Non-Conforming Driveways and Curb-Cuts (Ericson) M. Resolution 6420 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Tractor for the Parks Division N. Resolution 6430 Authorizing the Expenditure of Street Sign Maintenance Funds for the Conversion of Traffic Signal Lights to LED O. Resolution 6422 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement ½ Ton Pick Up Truck MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To approve Items A, B, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N. and O of the Consent Agenda as presented. Ayes-4 Nays -0 Motion carried C. Resolution 6420 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Tractor for the Parks Division Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 Council Member Stigney stated it may be prudent to see what happens with the golf course before purchasing a new tractor. Public Works Director Lee stated that the tractor that is at the golf course is a standard farm type tractor, and it is fairly limited in uses as opposed to the new style tractor that many cities are going with. Council Member Stigney asked if the old tractor was still functional. Public Works Director Lee stated that there are a lot of mechanical issues with it, and it is 15 years old, but it is still running. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To approve Resolution 6420, Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Tractor for the Parks Division. Ayes -3 Nays -1 (Stigney) Motion carried D. Resolution 6430 Authorizing the Expenditure of Street Sign Maintenance Funds for the Conversion of Traffic Signal Lights to LED. Mayor Marty stated that with the three intersections being proposed for conversion, the savings is approximately $2,959.20, and this equates to a 17 month pay back period. He stated that in 17 months, these lights will have paid for themselves, and from that point on it will be costing the City far less. Council Member Flaherty stated he was concerned that this item was not in the 2005 Budget that had been approved. Public Works Director Lee stated that this is a program that Ramsey County initiated, and that they had not communicated it ahead of time in order for it to be placed in the 2005 Budget. Council Member Gunn stated she saw this as a positive step toward Highway 10 redevelopment as far as safety issues. Mayor Marty stated that this would have to be paid for anyway when the actual construction started to fix the highway, so to do it now would start the savings in 17 months rather than later. Council Member Stigney asked whether TIF money could be used to pay it. Director Ericson stated that he would have to check with the TIF advisers on that. Council Member Stigney stated he would like to postpone action on this item until that information became available. Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Marty. To postpone action on Resolution 6430 until further information becomes available. Public Works Director Lee stated that timing was an issue because the County wants to start this project immediately, and delaying this item may mean that these three lights will not get included in this project. He stated that the County is doing this free of charge for the City. City Administrator Ulrich stated that if this were found to be TIF eligible, they could always submit it as a TIF eligible cost at a later time and move forward with approving this item. Ayes -0 Nays-4 Motion failed. MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Marty. To approve Resolution 6430, Authorizing the Expenditure of Street Sign Maintenance Funds for the Conversion of Traffic Signal Lights to LED, unless it is determined to be eligible to be paid by TIF funds. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. E. Resolution 6422 Approving the Purchase of a Replacement ½ Ton Pick Up Truck Council Member Stigney stat ed he had pulled this for the same reason as Item C, and that maybe the truck was still functional. He asked why they were replacing a half ton with a three quarter ton truck. Public Works Director Lee stated that the truck they were actually replacing is a three quarter ton truck, and that the City is trying to maximize the use of their utility trucks. He stated that the trucks that are replaced every ten years are put into a motor pool that is used quite a bit by seasonal staff, so they get more use th an the ten years. He stated the three quarter ton truck could be a potential plow truck for the City. He stated that the trucks are generally kept in the fleet for 15 -18 years on average. Mayor Marty asked whether the purchase of the truck was time sensitive. Public Works Director Lee stated that the bids are good until April. Mayor Marty asked if this was in the budget for replacement this year. Public Works Director Lee stated that it was. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To postpone a decision on Resolution 6422, and bring it back before the Council at a March meeting for further discussion. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 A. Resolution 6423 Selection of the Official City Newspaper, Acting Mayor, Treasurer, and Official Depositories for 2005. Desaree Crane stated that that this item is before the Council every year, and she had spoken with Finance Director Hansen to ensure that the depositories are still correct, and they are. She stated she chose The Bulletin because it was still cheaper. She stated the treasurers are assigned as they were in 2004. Mayor Marty stated that in the past they have gone back and forth between The Bulletin and The Focus since they were pretty close as far as charges. He asked if the St. Paul Pioneer and Press had submitted a bid in writing. Ms. Crane stated that it was hard to get a bid from either The Star or the St. Paul Pioneer and Press. Director Ericson stated he didn’t feel that was issue since in the previous years they had not had to utilize the secondary newspaper for anything. He stated he did not feel it was imperative to seek out quotes from the Pioneer Press and Star Tribune, as they may not respond. Mayor Marty asked whether they had submitted one in the past. Ms. Crane stated that they had not. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To adopt Resolution 6423, Selection of the Official City Newspaper, Acting Mayor, Treasurer, and Official Depositories for 2005 as presented. Council Member Stigney asked who was authorized to conduct banking and investments. He asked if there was a check and balance so it was not one individual doing it on their own. City Administrator Ulrich stated that the document he was familiar with required two signatures. Finance Director Hansen stated that the checks go out with one signature. He stated that contracts very often require two signatures. He stated that a lot of the financial transactions are done with a single signature, and that it would become cumbersome to have to have two signatures for some things. Council Member Stigney stated he thought the investment business should come before the Council rather than one or two people. Finance Director Hansen stated that the investments are done during the day, and investments wouldn’t be honored Tuesday morning if taken before the Council on a Monday night. Mayor Marty stated that he would feel comfortable with having two signatures on investments rather than one. City Administrator Ulrich suggested they take some work session time to look at the City’s Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 investment policies. Finance Director Hansen stated that Minnesota state law limits what any City Finance Director can invest in, and that there are some items allowed by law that he doesn’t feel comfortable investing in, so as a matter of practice, he is more restrictive than the law allows. Council Member Flaherty stated he would like this issue to be discussed at a work session. Finance Director Hansen stated that he recommended that they pass the entire resolution since they do have business that they need to conduct day-to-day. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. B. Resolution 6424 Appointing City Council Members and City Staff as Representatives for City Commissions and other organizations. Mayor Marty stated he would have to decline the Northwest Youth and Family Services Board because of his schedule. Council Member Stigney volunteered for the Human Resources Committee. Council Member Flaherty volunteered for the Human Resources Committee. Council Member Gunn volunteered to be on the Y Committee. Mayor Marty volunteered to be on the Y Committee. Council Member Flaherty volunteered to be on the Ramsey County League and Local Government Committee. Council Member Stigney stated that he could continue as an interim on the Spring Lake Park/ Blaine/Mounds View Firemans Relief Association. Mayor Marty stated they would have to leave the position on the Northwest Youth and Family Services open until the new Council member was elected. MOTION/SECOND. To approve Resolution 6424, Appointing City Council Members and City Staff as Representatives for City Commissions and other organizations as it was filled out during the Council meeting. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. C. Contract for Recreation Software D. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 754, an Ordinance Establishing Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 Planning and Development Fees. Director Ericson stated that it had come to their attention that their planning and development fees needed to be adopted by ordinance. He stated that currently the planning and development fees are annually adopted with the fee schedule, which is done by resolution. He stated that Ordinance 754 creates a new section of the City Code, Appendix E. He stated it made more sense to create this appendix and remove the subdivision fees from Chapter 1202. He stated that they are also adding a paragraph in Section 1202.02 relating to costs above and beyond the subdivision application fee, which he read aloud. He stated that the second reading would occur on January 24th. MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn. To approve the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 754, an Ordinance Establishing Planning and Development Fees, and to waive the reading. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. E. Resolution 6425 Step Increase for Greg Lee, Public Works Director. City Administrator Ulrich read Resolution 6425 aloud. MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve Resolution 6425, Step Increase for Greg Lee, Public Works Director. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. F. Resolution 6426 Approve a Charitable Gambling Permit for the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club. Desaree Crane stated that the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club had held this one-day charitable gambling permit in the past, and they would like to have it again for April 1, 2005. MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney. To approve Resolution 6426, Approve a Charitable Permit for the New Brighton/Mounds View Rotary Club. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. Mayor Marty stated that Merrick had taken over the charitable gambling at Roberts, and with just one gambling establishment they don’t have the funds to do what they had in the past. He stated that Merrick hasn’t contributed to any of the groups or organizations that had come to the Lions, and he asked to have an accounting of Merrick’s gambling permit proceeds because 40 percent of the charitable gambling permit proceeds is supposed to come back to the City. He asked staff to look into this and report back to the Council. Council Member Gunn stated that she didn’t think hiring six handicapped people that live in the City with 40 percent of the money coming back into the community. Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 11 G. Resolution 6416 Authorizing the Police Department to Accept a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant from the MN Department of Public Safety Office of Justice Program. Police Chief Sommer stated that this grant was based on need, crime rate, and quality of the application, and they were fortunate to be awarded it. He stated that only 20 percent of the applicants were awarded the grant. He stated that the $12,500 grant would be used for 800 megahertz portable radios, and the City would be required to match $1,389 for the purchase. Mayor Marty thanked Police Chief Sommer for applying for the grant, and he stated that this is a great deal. Finance Director Hansen stated that one item got left out of the resolution, and that is that the local matching funds would come from the police forfeiture fund. Mayor Marty amended the last whereas clause in the Resolution to read, “Whereas, the grant requires the City of Mounds View to provide matching funds in the amount of $1,389, coming from the Police Forfeiture Fund.” MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Flaherty. To Approve Resolution 6416 as amended, Authorizing the Police Department to Accept a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant from the MN Department of Public Safety Office of Justice Program, and to waive the reading. Ayes -4 Nays-0 Motion carried. H. Resolution 6419 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) Between 8265 and 8281 Spring Lake Road (Ericson) Director Ericson stated that this is an application for a lot line adjustment, which according to City Code is considered a minor subdivision. He stated that minor subdivisions are considered divisions of land in which no more than one additional lot is created, and the amount of land would be less than two acres. He stated that even though this does not create any new lots, and does not involve the intensification of the land in any way, but it is still considered a minor subdivision simply by shifting the lot line. He stated that the reason for the lot line adjustment is that when the house at 8265 Spring Lake Road was constructed, it was not constructed where the survey said it was going to be, and the property owners did not realize that until the neighbors pulled a permit for a fence. He stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed this request, and they felt it met all the requirements of the subdivision code. He stated that there would be no park dedication fee required for this subdivision because there is no further intensification of the land. Director Ericson stated that when a subdivision occurs, there is a review of easements, and there was a perimeter drainage and utility easement granted for this property. He stated when the lot line shifts, then the easement is no longer a perimeter utility easement. He stated that the Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 12 easement slices through part of the house and garage, so that needs to be resolved. He stated that the next item on the agenda is to vacate that easement. He stated that the property owners have already executed an easement document which essentially rededicates that same easement, but consistent with the lot lines. Council Member Flaherty asked whether either of the residents had a problem with this. Director Ericson stated that they do not. Council Member Flaherty asked if there were any administrative fees associated with this on the City’s part. Director Ericson stated that there may be some minimal legal fees involved. He stated it had been communicated to the property owner that if there were additional expenses, they would be responsible for them. MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney. To approve Resolution 6419 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) Between 8265 and 8281 Spring Lake Road, and to waive the reading. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. I. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 757, an Ordinance Vacating an Unused and Excess Utility Easement Associated with 8265 Spring Lake Road (Ericson) Director Ericson stated that the property owners have executed a new easement which replaces the former easement, but City Charter requires that any release of easement areas be done by ordinance, so this is the first reading which would effectuate that vacation. MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Flaherty. To approve the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 757, an Ordinance Vacating an Unused and Excess Utility Easement Associated with 8265 Spring Lake Park, and to waive the reading. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. J. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 756, an Ordinance Amending the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Non-Conforming Driveways and Curb-Cuts, Director Ericson stated that when the City Council adopted Ordinance 752 last year, what that Ordinance did was strike language from the City Code that provided an allowance for a one- foot setback for driveways in R-1 or R2 District. He stated when the Planning Commission was going through that Ordinance, it became quite apparent that there were other issues that needed to be addressed as well. He stated that he had spelled out in the staff report what some Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 13 of those issues were. He stated the Ordinance makes corrections to four different sections of the City Code, and than rather than automatically allowing a nonconformity to continue, it makes the correction when the opportunity presents itself, such as a street reconstruction or during a driveway construction. He stated that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Ordinance. Mayor Marty asked if the residents would have an option whether or not to correct the nonconformity when the streets are re-constructed. Director Ericson stated that the option is that if it can be made compliant, then let’s make it compliant. He stated that the property owner has a right to appeal that. He stated that hardship would have to be proven in order for a variance to be granted. He stated that this does give some allowances to property owners so that they can keep something that is nonconforming if it makes sense. He stated that the Public Works Director and the Community Development Director would assess each situation on a case-by-case basis. He stated that the intent of this is not to create any hardships for the residents; it’s simply to correct code compliance issues when possible rather than just by default allowing them to remain. He stated that the issue with street reconstruction is more associated with curb cuts than driveways. MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Gunn. To approve the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 756, an Ordinance Amending the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Non-Conforming Driveways and Curb-Cuts, and to waive the reading. Ayes -4 Nays -0 Motion carried. K. Resolution 6432 Authorizing Staff to Advertise to Fill the Position of Part- time Temporary Building Inspector in the Community Development Department. Council Member Stigney asked if this was a union or nonunion position. Director Ericson stated that it as proposed, it would be as a nonunion position, part-time temporary. He stated if the position were extended to be more of a full-time position, then that would trigger union paying dues. MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To adopt Resolution 6432, authorizing Staff to Advertise to Fill the Position of Part-time Temporary Building Inspector in the Community Development Department, and to waive the reading. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. L. Resolution 6431 Directing Staff to Coordinate the Preparation of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Associated with the Bridges of Mounds View Redevelopment Site. Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 14 Director Ericson stated that what is proposed is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would make the Comprehensive Plan Amendment consistent with the zoning of the golf course. He stated that there was a recognition that there was a long term future use along the lines of some type of industrial/corporate office development. He stated that RLK is offering to coordinate the preparation and submission of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Met Council, and that the EDA had earlier that evening authorized the expenditure for that to occur. He stated that what this Resolution does is authorize staff to coordinate the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, have it go before the Planning Commission to hold public hearings, and then either the City Council could approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and forward it onto the Met Council, or a quicker process would be to forward it onto the Met Council after the Planning Commission had reviewed it. He stated that staff is asking the Council to consider an Amended Resolution which would authorize the Planning Commission to review the amendment and forward it onto the Met Council, have them do the approval process, and then send it back to the City Council for final authorization. Director Ericson passed out a copy of the Amended Resolution 6431. He stated that this would be before the Planning Commission at their January 19th meeting, with formal review and consideration on February 2nd. He stated that RLK would then have the final Comprehensive Plan Amendment Plan package ready to go to the Met Council on February 3rd. Council Member Flaherty asked what would happen if they rezone it, and in January of 2006 they still had the golf course. Director Ericson stated that the land use simply would be a legal nonconforming use, so it would be allowed to remain. MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Stigney. To adopt Resolution 6431 as Amended, Directing Staff to Coordinate the Preparation of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Associated with the Bridges of Mounds View Redevelopment Site, and to waive the reading. Ayes -4 Nays-0 Motion carried. M. Resolution 6433 Approving a Contract with HealthPartners for Employee Group Health Insurance. Finance Director Hansen explained that the premium increase for 2005 came in at 22 percent. He stated that City Administrator Ulrich had communicated with another city who had experienced the same thing, and they had been successful in lowering their premium increase by using an insurance consultant to shop around. He stated that they had contacted this same insurance consultant to do the same for them. He stated that Health Partners had offered a cap on increases in the premiums for the second year, which was favorable. He stated that currently 25 percent of the employees are currently using Health Partners insurance, and a lot of them didn’t want to have to change clinics or doctors. He stated that by adopting this Resolution, they would again be in a position where the premium increase would be less than 15 percent, and the City would save money. He stated that the City would see a greater benefit yet in 2006. Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 15 Mayor Marty thanked City Administrator Ulrich and Finance Director Hansen for networking with other cities and saving the City money. Council Member Stigney asked whether the City received any benefit from employees selecting the health savings account option. City Administrator Ulrich stated that one of the benefits of the health savings account, and probably the reason they were created in the first place, was that it will encourage people to be selective in how they make their health care choices, so that they will choose cheaper providers and cheaper prescription costs, and thereby lowering the cost, and hopefully lowering the overall premiums for the group, so that it could potentially have an indirect benefit to the City as they move forward. Finance Director Hansen stated that you would not see any savings in the first year or two, and that it was a long-term proposition. MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Marty. To adopt Resolution 6433, Approving a Contract with HealthPartners for Employee Group Health Insurance, and to waive the reading. Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. N. Resolution 6435 Approval of Carpet Bid for the Mounds View Community Center. Rescheduled. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Minutes December 6, 2004 Mayor Marty requested that the tape be reviewed to determine who the resident was that was speaking at page 6, line 17. He stated that at page 8, line 32, and also on page 9, it should be reflected that it was Tom Flagg of 2714 Lake Court Drive. He stated that at page 11, line 8, the blank should be filled in to read “Police Chief Sommer”. On page 11, line 44, it should read, “Cressa Partners.” On page 13, lines 18 and 31, it should read, “Bill Werner.” MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To approving the City Council Minutes of December 6, 2004 as amended. Ayes – 3 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Executive Session Minutes, December 13, 2004. MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Gunn. To approve the Executive Session Minutes of December 13, 2004. Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 16 Ayes-3 Nays-0 Motion carried. Council Member Flaherty abstained as he was not present at the meeting. C. City Council Minutes, December 13, 2004. Council Member Gunn stated that at page 1, line 38, the sentence should read, “…asked whether there would be another candidate running for the people at the upcoming special election.” Mayor Marty stated that at page 1, line 38, “Hamline” should be spelled “Hilman” City Administrator Ulrich stated that at page 9, line 12, the figure should be $10,200. Mayor Marty stated at page 2, line 31, it should be “Richard Sonterre.” Mayor Marty asked whether City Administrator Ulrich would like to be referred to as City Clerk or City Administrator, and City Administrator Ulrich stated that City Administrator was preferable. Mayor Marty stated at page 7, line 13, it should read “Steve Dazenski.” MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney. To approve the City Council Minutes of December 13, 2004 as amended. Ayes -4 Nays-0 Motion carried. D. Executive Session Minutes, January 3, 2005. MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the Executive Session Minutes of January 3, 2005. Ayes -4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 12. REPORTS A. Reports of Council. None. Mayor Marty urged citizens to vote in the Special Election on February 1st. He stated that Candidates Forum is on Channel 16 and is scheduled for many dates and times. Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 17 Council Member Stigney stated that it would be advantageous to have a work session to discuss the policy that the Council wishes to adopt for eminent domain with the new Council members after February 1st. Director Ericson explained that the list the City has of potential properties they would purchase is merely a list that the State Auditor required they file. He stressed that these are not properties that they are going after, and it is not a condemnation list. . B. Staff 1. Announce Vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Public Works Director Lee reiterated the announcement that there is a vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission, and if anyone is interested, to please fill out an application. He stated that applications are available at City Hall, and the deadline is Monday, January 17th. 2. Announce Vacancy on the Planning Commission. Director Ericson stated that there have been no applications received for the vacancy on the Planning Commission, and it is a Commission that meets twice monthly. He stated that it is a great opportunity to be at the forefront of planning and development within the city. He stated that applications are available at City Hall and on the web site. Mayor Marty stated that there is also an opening on the EDC. 3. Def ense Costs Re lated to Litigation with the Harstad Companies. Finance Director Hansen stated that the League of Minnesota Cities handled the defense in the litigation with the Harstad Companies, and their total cost in defending the lawsuit was about $75,000. He stated that under the terms of the City’s insurance policy, the City pays the first $10,000 of the cost, and then 15 percent of the amount above $10,000. He stated that the City received a bill from the League for $19,671, so they would have to pay those costs. Mayor Marty stated he was under the impression that there was still something potentially happening with the lawsuit. Director Ericson stated that it was over. 4. Set a Date in March for Council/Staff Strategic Planning Session. City Administrator Ulrich stated that it is the time of year when the Council sits down to talk about what they hope to accomplish in the next year or two, and discuss what had been accomplished in the last year. He stated it would make sense to meet sometime in February or earl y March. He stated that a facilitator would cost $2,500 for two evenings. He asked the Council if they would like to meet two evenings or have a weekend session. Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 18 Mayor Marty suggested the first part of March in order to give the new Council members a chance to get their feet wet. He stated they should check with the facilitators to check on their available dates. City Administrator Ulrich stated he would check on their available dates for the first week in March. 5. Announce Time, Date and Location for the North Metro Home and Garden Show. Director Ericson stated that the North Metro Home and Garden Show is scheduled for March 5, 2005 from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Blaine National Sports Center. C. City Attorney None. 13. Next Council Work Session: Monday, February 7, 2005, 7pm Next Council Meeting: Monday, January 24, 2005 at 7pm. (EDA at 6:30 p.m.) 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Sheree Theobald Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.