HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2004/01/26
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
Monday, January 26, 2004
6:30 PM
THIS IS A CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR ISSUES AND PENDING LITIGATION .
CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, January 26, 2004
7:00 p.m.
(REVISED as of January 26, 2004 @ 2:45pm)
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Gunn
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 6165 Approving the 2004 Seasonal Public Works Seasonal Positions.
B. Resolution 6166 Approving the Preliminary Feasibility Report for the 2003 Street
Improvement Project – Phase I
C. Resolution 6174 Approving Appointments to the Police Civil Service Commission
D. Resolution 6170 Approving the 2003 L.E.L.S. Local 232 Labor Agreement
E. Resolution 6180 Employee Contribution From Sick Leave For Health Facility Membership
F. Resolution 6177 Approving a Permit Application for Merrick, Inc., a charitable organization
to conduct Charitable Gambling at Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment located in the
City of Mounds View.
G. Resolution 6173 Authorizing the Replacement of the Police Departments Automatic
External Defibrillators Utilizing Grant Funds, Grant Matching Funds and Forfeiture Funds
H. Resolution 6176 Authorizing the Purchase of Two Replacement Squad Cars
I. Resolution 6168 Approving an Area Identification Sign for Scotland Green Apartments
J. Resolution 6178 Authorizing the submittal of a request for proposal (RFP) for work
associated with the implementation of the County Road 10 Redevelopment and
Revitalization Plan
K. Licenses for Approval.
L. Resolution 6182 Approving 2004 Golf Course Seasonal Positions
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 PM: Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 725 Amending the
Zoning Code Establishing an Administrative Variance Approval Process.
B. Resolution 6167 Approving the Contract Award for the County Road H Sidewalk Project
C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 724, An Ordinance setting Water Rates and
Surcharges for service in 2004. (Roll Call Vote)
9. Council Business (Continued)
D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 728, An Ordinance setting Storm Water
Management Fees for service in 2004. (Roll Call Vote)
E. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 727, an Ordinance Amending Section 1006.07
Regarding Enforcement of Development Conditions. (Roll Call Vote)
F. Public Works and Parks Foreman Position Reclassifications (verbal report)
G. Resolution 6172 Approving the appointment of Michael Kampa to Police Sergeant
H. Resolution 6175 Approving a Contract with US Link for Local Telephone Service
I. Adoption of Interim Ordinance 730, an Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on the Siting,
Location and Operation of New Adult Use Businesses
J. Set date(s) for City Council Retreat.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. January 12, 2004 City Council Minutes.
11 REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
(1) Resolution 6184 Direct Staff to Prepare an Ordinance to Revise Title 400 of the City
Code (Roger Stigney)
B. Reports of Staff
(1) Police Department
(2) Finance Department
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, February 2, 2004
Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 9, 2004
Item No. 8A
Meeting Date: January 26, 2004
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6165 Approving the 2004 Seasonal
Public Works Positions
Background
On March 26, 2001 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5546 that describes
the procedure for hiring Seasonal Employees. This resolution requires that the
City Council approve all seasonal positions.
Discussion
Annually the City Council has approved the hiring of seasonal Public Works
positions. Resolution No. 5546 requires that approval take place six weeks prior
to actual hire of seasonal employees; therefore, this is typically done in January
or February.
Seasonal Employees benefit the City by providing labor services that are
relatively less expensive and are available during periods of greater labor
demand. In return, seasonal employees benefit from the skills and work ethics
they learn on the job. As a result, the employees, the City, citizens, and
taxpayers all benefit from this program.
Historically, there have been three time periods throughout the year when the
City Council approves the seasonal positions in the Public Works Department:
Summer Seasonal Employees – There are a total of ten (10) positions, five (5) in
Public Works and five (5) in the Parks Division. Duties include general Public
Works and parks maintenance duties. The employees generally are employed for
about three months in the summer – mid-to late-May to mid-to late-August.
Typically one Parks Division seasonal employee begins employment in April.
Fall Seasonal Employee – There are two (2) seasonal position, one (1) in Public
Works Sewer Division, and one (1) in the Parks Division. Historically, summer
positions are extended to cover duties performed in the fall. Staff recommends
these seasonal positions be designated as completely separate positions with
separate contracts. Duties performed by the Public Works Sewer Division
seasonal include working with the two Sanitary Sewer Maintenance employees
and the Surface Water / Storm Sewer Maintenance employee to create two
separate crews of two employees to maximize efficiency.
The duties of the fall seasonal employee in the Parks Division include fall
activities such as leaf clean up and providing assistance to both Public Works
and Parks in year-end maintenance activities. These positions would start
approximately in late August. The Parks Division seasonal employee would work
until the end of November. The Public Works Sewer seasonal employee would
work until the end of December, weather permitting.
Winter Seasonal Employee - This is only one seasonal position and was
previously referred to as the Ice Rink Maintenance position. The main duty of this
position is to service and maintain the City’s ice rinks and warming houses. This
position typically runs from December to February of the following year.
For the 2003 season, the new hires started at the hourly rate of $9.75/hr with the
possibility of advancing to $10.25/hr after one month of satisfactory performance.
Returning seasonal workers were compensated at $10.50/hr.
Due to the low number of applicants applying for these positions in 2003 (11
applicants for 10 positions), Staff is recommending that new hires start at the
hourly rate of $10.00/hr with the possibility of advancing to $10.50/hr after one
month of satisfactory performance. Returning seasonal workers would be
compensated at $10.75/hr. This represents a 2.4% average overall increase over
previous 2003 rates.
Each summer seasonal employee will work 40 hours per week. The fall seasonal
employee and ice rink employee may also work 40 hours per week: however,
hours may be fewer. All seasonal positions will remain on staff for a period no
longer than six months.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the 2004 Seasonal Public Works
Positions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 6165
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE 2004 SEASONAL PUBLIC WORKS POSITIONS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5546 requires that seasonal positions must be
approved by the Mounds View City Council; and
WHEREAS, Seasonal Employees benefit the City by providing labor
services that are relatively less expensive and are available during periods of
greater labor; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View Public Works Department does have
a need to hire seasonal employees; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department is recommending that seasonal
positions be approved for three periods throughout 2004; and
WHEREAS, said periods are: Summer, Fall, and Winter; and
WHEREAS, this resolution is consistent with the requirements in
Resolution No. 5546; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The 2004 Summer Seasonal Public Works Positions are approved
– a total of ten (10) positions. These positions would start in
approximately mid-to late-May 2004 and terminate in mid-to late-
August 2004. However, one Parks Division seasonal employee
typically begins employment in April
2. The 2004 Fall Seasonal Public Works Positions are approved - a
total of two (2) positions. One position in the Public Works Sewer
Division and the other in the Parks Division of Public Works. These
positions would start approximately in mid to late August 2004. The
Parks Division seasonal employee would work until the end of
November. The Public Works Sewer seasonal employee would
work until the end of December, weather permitting.
3. The 2004 Winter Seasonal Public Works Position is approved - a
total of one (1) position. This position would start approximately in
early December 2004 and terminate near the end of February
2005.
4. All Public Works seasonal positions will be filled, with new hires
starting at the hourly rate of $10.00/hr with the possibility of
advancing to $10.50/hr after one month of satisfactory
performance. Returning seasonal workers will be compensated at
rate of $10.75/hr.
5. Each position will work forty (40) hours per week; however the Fall
and Winter positions may work less than forty (40) hours per week.
6. All Public Works seasonal positions will remain on staff for a period
no longer than six months.
Adopted this 26th day of January 2004.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 8B
Meeting Date: January 26, 2004
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6166 Approving the Feasibility
Report and Setting a Public Improvement Hearing
Date for the 2003 Street Improvement Project –
Phase I
Background:
On October 28, 2002, City Council adopted Resolution No. 5870 authorizing the
preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant selection for the
2003 Street Improvement Project. The streets to be considered for this project
are those contained in the area bounded by County Road 10 to the north and
east, County Road H2 to the south, and Pleasant View Drive to the west.
A draft preliminary feasibility report for this project was completed and was
presented to the City Council on September 2, 2003 for review.
On October 13, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6109 authorizing
the preparation of plans and specifications for this project.
Discussion:
Neighborhood Meeting
A Neighborhood Meeting was held on November 6, 2003 to introduce this project
to the public and to receive feedback. The meeting was advertised and notices
were directly mailed to all affected property owners.
Approximately forty (40) people attended. At the meeting, a summary report was
distributed; this was a forty-five (45) page report, which included all the details of
the proposed project: maps, mock assessment role, the newly adopted Roadway
Major Maintenance Financing Policy, and a feedback form. This data was also
made available on the City’s website and at City Hall.
The meeting consisted of the presentation and a consequential question and
answer session. The presentation included a slide show. The meeting went
extremely well and the residents asked some very good questions. The residents
were also encouraged to read the summary report fully and provide the City with
feedback by filling out the “Feedback Form” attached to the back. As of January
21, 2004, the City has received a total of seventeen (19) responses - sixteen (16)
marked as being generally in favor of the project, two (2) generally opposed, and
one (1) not sure.
Curb and Gutter
In the area west of Silver Lake Road, all except two responses indicated that
they would prefer concrete curb and gutter. One prefers bituminous curb and
gutter and the other does not want any curbs. Given that the estimated cost to
provide concrete curb, gutter, and driveway apron is less than $122,000, value
and longevity are increased, and the community supports the provision of such,
Staff is recommending that the project include concrete curb, gutters, and
driveway aprons.
Rice Creek Watershed District Permit Requirements
On December 18, 2003, Staff met with representatives of the Rice Creek
Watershed District to discuss any requirements they may pose on this project. As
a result of that meeting two infiltration basins were added to the project and three
underground structures were also added to treat storm water prior to being
discharged into Spring Lake. The estimated cost of these items is $109,300. The
Rice Creek Watershed District has not issued a permit for this project as of yet.
The City typically makes an application at the time the plans are completed.
Therefore, there is no guarantee that the District will approve the water infiltration
and quality measures as currently proposed.
Silver Lake Woods Condominiums – Dedication of Private Streets
On May 6, 2002 the issue of dedication of private streets was discussed at a City
Council Work Session. The City Council seemed to somewhat agree on the
proposed policy: however, no action was taken. On July 11, 2002, Staff met with
Cliff Ash and Mike Berke of the Silver Lake Woods Homeowners Association,
outlining the requirements the City would be looking for in order to dedicate their
streets to the City.
The City received a proposed draft agreement for Public Dedication of Streets
and Utilities, drafted by J. Patrick Brinkman of the law firm Felhaber, Larson,
Fenlon, & Vogt dated December 2, 2002. A copy was also forwarded to the City’s
legal counsel, Scott Riggs.
Should this project proceed, and based on City Council’s direction, Staff will
facilitate meetings with the Homeowners Association and their legal counsel to
identify and discuss any and all issues associated with dedication of private
streets. The last time this topic was discussed with the Council was at the Work
Session on May 6, 2002.
Preliminary Report - On the basis of the City Council's previous action, a
preliminary report has been prepared. Based upon this analysis the project is felt
to be necessary, cost effective and feasible. A copy of the feasibility report is
attached for the Council's review.
Set Public Improvement Hearing - The public improvements associated with
the 2003 Street Improvement Project will benefit properties in the immediate
area. Therefore, for the costs to be assessed to all benefited properties, it will be
necessary to hold a public improvement hearing for the project. A hearing date
of February 23, 2004, will afford the necessary time to publish legal notices and
send out letters to affected property owners.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution approving the Feasibility
Report and Setting a Public Improvement Hearing date for the 2003 Street
Improvement Project – Phase I.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 6166
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SETTING A PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT HEARING DATE FOR THE 2003 STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT – PHASE I
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2002, City Council adopted Resolution No.
5870 authorizing the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant
selection for the 2003 Street Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility report has been prepared and does find the
construction of said improvements to be necessary, cost effective and feasible;
and
WHEREAS, the City desires to assess the cost of said improvements to
all benefited properties; and
WHEREAS, a Public Improvement Hearing date of February 23, 2004, will
afford the necessary time to publish legal notices and send out letters to affected
property owners; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
1. The feasibility report, which was prepared pursuant to Resolution
No. 5870 for the 2003 Street Improvement Project – Phase I
finds the improvements to be necessary, cost effective and feasible
and is hereby approved.
2. A public improvement hearing for said improvement is hereby set
for 7:00 PM on February 23, 2004 at the Mounds View City Hall
and the City Administrator shall give mailed and published notice of
said hearing and improvements as required by law.
3. The City Administrator is authorized and directed to cause notice of
the time, place and purpose of said meeting to be published for two
(2) successive weeks in the official newspaper of the City, the first
of such publication to be not less than ten (10) days and the second
not less than three (3) days prior to the date of said meeting, and to
be mailed to owners of the property in the area proposed to be
assessed not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of said
meeting.
Adopted this 26th day of January 2004.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No: 08C
Meeting Date: January 26, 2004
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6174 Appointment of Police Civil Service
Commissioners
The Police Civil Service Commission is comprised of three (3) Commission seats each
serving a three-year term. All three seats are currently vacant. Staff advertised for these
positions in the New Brighton/Mounds View Bulletin in December of 2002 and again in
October of 2003.
The City’s Municipal Code states that based on the recommendation of the Commissions
“the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, shall appoint a Chairperson for each
respective Commission.” If the Mayor does not pick from the applicants, then the
application stays on file for 12 months. All applications that are 12 months or older are
destroyed.
Recommendation:
The Mayor has reviewed all applications. It is recommended that the City Council
approve the following residents to the Police Civil Service Commission.
Name Term Expiration
Mari Milewski Shay December 31, 2006
Virgil Dean Beyer December 31, 2005
Dale Alan Federer December 31, 2004
Respectfully Submitted,
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6174
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPOINTMENT OF POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS
WHEREAS, Chapter 404 of the Mounds View City Municipal Code established
the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission; and
WHEREAS, Section 404.01 of the above mentioned Chapter sets the method for
the appointment of the Police Civil Service Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, Section 404.01 states that Police Commissioners shall be appointed
by the Mayor with the approval of a majority of the Council; and
WHEREAS, there are three (3) vacant seats on the Police Civil Service
Commission; and
WHEREAS, Mounds View Mayor Jerry Linke has reviewed all current
applications on file at the Mounds View City offices for this appointment, and has
recommended to the Council for its approval the names of 3 Mounds View residents for
appointment to the Mounds View Police Civil Service Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a majority of the Mounds View City
Council does hereby approve the following appointments to the terms indicated:
NAME TERM EXPIRATION
Mari Milewski Shay December 31, 2006
Virgil Dean Beyer December 31, 2005
Dale Alan Feder December 31, 2004
Adopted this 26th day of January, 2004.
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 08E
Meeting Date: 1/26/04
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6180 Employee Contribution From Sick Leave For Health
Facility Membership
Section 3.20 of the City Personnel Manual states the following:
D. HEALTH CLUB MEMBERSHIP
Employees are reimbursed for a health club membership in exchange for accrued Sick
Leave. An hour of Sick Leave is valued at the employee’s current rate of pay.
Employees can participate if a minimum balance of 80 hours sick leave is maintained.
The maximum monthly contribution amount is $40 per month. Balance and contribution
amounts are pro-rated for part-time employees.
Presumably, health and wellness programs such as this one produce benefits to the City, in that
employees (in theory) become more physically fit and mentally alert with decreases in lost time
due to illness. At the time the $40 monthly reimbursement amount was enacted, it more than
covered a single membership. Rates have increased substantially over the years, yet the
monthly reimbursement has not changed since the program's inception nearly a decade ago.
Staff called three health clubs and requested monthly rates for a single membership. They are
as follows:
• YMCA $49
• Lifetime $48
• Northwest $68
The average rate for the three clubs is $55.
Staff’s recommendation is to increase the maximum monthly reimbursement to $55, which would
be sufficient to cover two of the rates for a single membership and partial for the third.
For those who belong to the Y or Lifetime on a "single" membership, their reimbursement would
be limited to their monthly rate, which is currently $49 and $48 respectively. Thus, while $55
would be the maximum, the true budgetary impact would be less (unless of course EVERYONE
has a family membership or belongs to Northwest.). Currently, approximately eight employees
participate in the reimbursement program.
Recommendation:
To increase the maximum monthly reimbursement from $40.00 to $55.00.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 6180
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION FROM SICK LEAVE FOR HEALTH FACILITY
MEMBERSHIP
WHEREAS, Section 3.20 of the Mounds View Personnel Manual states
employees are reimbursed for a health club membership in exchange for accrued sick
leave; and
WHEREAS, currently employees that participate must have a minimum balance
and must maintain 80 hours sick leave; and
WHEREAS, rates for health facility membership have increased at an average of
$55.00; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes an
increase in health facility membership from $40.00 to $55.00 effective January 1, 2004.
Adopted this 26th day of January, 2004.
_________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No: 08F
Meeting Date: January 26, 2004
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6177 Approving a Permit Application for Merrick,
Inc., a Charitable Organization to conduct Charitable
Gambling at Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment located
in the City of Mounds View
Merrick, Inc., a non-profit charitable organization would like to hold charitable
gambling on a permanent basis at Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment located
at 2400 County Road H2, in the City of Mounds View.
Merrick, Inc., is a private, non-profit 501(c)(3) charitable corporation, licensed by
DHS as a Day Training & Habilitation (DT&H) and Supported Employment
Services (SES) provider. The focus of their program is to provide employment
services to adults with a developmental disability.
Merrick, Inc.’s offices are currently located in Vadnais Heights, they have been in
existence since 1964, and has 30 active members (list attached), which meets the
requirements of the Mounds View City Code.
The Gambling Control Board requires that local unit of government (city or county),
pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the Premises Permit
Application. This resolution (approving or denying the application) must be voted
on and the resolution forwarded to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board.
Attached are the Lawful Gambling Application and a list of current members.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Premise Permits to permit Charitable Gambling for
Merrick, Inc., at the location stated above.
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________
Desaree M. Crane
RESOLUTION NO. 6177
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR MERRICK, INC., A
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION TO CONDUCT CHARITABLE GAMBLING AT
ROBERT’S SPORTS BAR AND ENTERTAINMENT LOCATED AT
2400 COUNTY ROAD H2
WHEREAS, Merrick, Inc., has requested that Council allow them to
conduct charitable gambling at Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment; 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; and
WHEREAS, Merrick, Inc., is in compliance with all requirements of the
Mounds View Municipal Code with regard to charitable gambling regulations; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Mounds View to assist in the
economic prosperity of local business owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby authorize Merrick, Inc., to conduct charitable gambling at
Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment.
Adopted this 26th day of January, 2004.
_______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8G
Meeting Date: January 26, 2004
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Chief Mike Sommer
Item Title/Subject: Replacement of Automated Electronic Defibrillators
(AED’s)
Background: In 1998 the Mounds View Police Department purchased four
Automated Electronic Defibrillators (AED’s). The AED’s are carried in the squad
cars that are used for daily patrol duties. The AED’s have been used dozens of
times over the years, and are directly responsible for number of saves of victims
experiencing cardiac arrest.
Discussion: Cardiac Science, the company that manufactured the 1st
Generation “Survivalink” AED’s, currently in use by the Mounds View Police
Department, has developed new, easier to use and more effective technology in
their new 3rd Generation AED’s. In conjunction with the new technology, Cardiac
Science is offering a trade-in/upgrade program, which gives significant credit for
units owned and used by existing customers. Under the program, the Mounds
View Police Department can receive $800.00 credit for each of the four currently
owned AED’s, for a total credit of $3200.00, toward the purchase of four new
units. Although Cardiac Science labels their program a “trade in” initiative, they
have indicated they are willing to allow agencies to keep their old AED’s, which
can be given to schools or other entities in the community that may have a use
for them. One of the police department’s four units is currently in need of repair.
In October 2003 the police department pursued a grant being offered through the
American Heart Association. Under this grant the Heart Association would
reimburse up to fifty-percent (50%) of the list price for new AED purchases. New
AED’s list for $2495.00 each, and it is also recommended they be kept in a
protective case ($149.95 each). Each unit also requires a set of electrodes
($39.95 each). The police department has been notified that it has been
approved for an award under the AHA grant in an amount of $5369.80.
By combining the grant award with the trade-in/upgrade program, four of the 3rd
Generation AED’s, having a total value of $10,739.60, can be acquired at a cost
of about $2169.80, plus tax and shipping. Funding for the required match to
make this purchase would come in part from the balance of interest accrued to
date in the police grant fund, which is approximately $1065.00. The remaining
required money would be taken from the police forfeiture fund.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council grant approval for the
police department to purchase four new 3rd Generation AED’s valued at
$10,739.60. This purchase will be accomplished by accepting the AHA grant of
$5369.80, utilizing the upgrade credits for four existing units of $3200.00, and
covering the remaining amounts by contributing the current interest balance in
the police grant fund of approximately $1065.00, and using at least $1104.80 of
the police forfeiture fund to cover the remaining cost, plus any tax and shipping.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mike Sommer, Police Chief
RESOLUTION NO. 6173
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF FOUR NEW THIRD GENERATION
AUTOMATED DEFIBRILLATOR DEVICES (AED’S)
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department purchased four 1st
Generation AED’s in 1998 from Cardiac Science of Minnetonka, MN; and
WHEREAS, Cardiac Science is currently offering an upgrade program that
will give a purchase credit toward 3rd Generation AED’s of $3200.00 ($800. per
unit) for the Mounds View Police Department; and
WHEREAS, 3rd Generation technology AED’s list for $2495. plus $149.95
for a case and $39.95 for electrodes; and
WHEREAS, a grant was pursued and awarded through the American
Heart Association which will provide funding in the amount of $5369.80, which
can be used toward the purchase of new AED’s; and
WHEREAS, Accrued interest from the police grant fund of approximately
$1065.00 and at least $1104.80 from the police forfeiture fund will be used to
cover the remaining balance of costs for the purchase.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows:
The Mounds View Police Department is authorized to purchase four, new,
3rd Generation AED’s, with electrodes and cases, from Cardiac Science.
This purchase will be funded by a combination of upgrade credit, grant
funds, and monies from the police grant fund and police forfeiture fund.
Adopted this 26th day of January 2004.
____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST: ____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8H
Meeting Date: January 26, 2004
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Sommer, Police Chief
Item Title/Subject: Purchase of Police Squad Cars for 2004
Date of Report: January 26, 2004
NATURE OF REPORT: The police department budgeted $22,000.00 each for
the replacement of two squad cars in 2004. Superior Ford has been awarded the
state bid for the 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. The Crown Victoria
is being sold for $500.00 below 2003 pricing, at a price of $20,312.00 each,
excluding tax, registration, and license. This cost does not include necessary
equipment and set up and expenses, which have been budgeted separately.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for the replacement of two
squad cars under the state bid through Superior Ford, for two 2004 Ford Crown
Victoria’s, at an estimated total cost of $40,624.00, excluding tax, registration and
license.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Mike Sommer
Police Chief
RESOLUTION 6176
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SQUAD CAR PURCHASE
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department maintains a replacement schedule of police
vehicles, and;
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department planned and budgeted for replacement of two
squad cars in 2004, and;
WHEREAS, the replacement cost of two squad cars was budgeted in 2004 at an estimated
$22,000.00 each, plus equipment and set up, and;
WHEREAS, Superior Ford was awarded the state bid for the 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Police
Interceptor Package for 2004 at an approximate cost of $20,312.00 each.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Mounds View
authorizes the purchase of two 2004 Ford Crown Victoria police vehicles under the state bid at an
approximate cost of $20,312.00 each, for a total cost of $40,624.00, plus tax, registration, and
any license fees.
Adopted this 26th day of January 2004.
____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST: ____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
Item No. 8J
Meeting Date: January 26, 2004
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: County Road 10 Redevelopment and
Revitalization Plan
Resolution 6178 Authorizing the development of a
request for proposal (RFP) for work associated
with the implementation of the County Road 10
Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan
Background:
On January 5, 2004, Staff introduced the development an implementation plan
for the County Road 10 Redevelopment and Revitalization Project. There was
little discussion on this topic, as City Council members were not provided the
original report and background information. Attached is the Work Session report
from January 5, 2004.
Discussion:
On August 26, 2002, the City Council approved resolution No. 5824 adopting the
County Road 10 Redevelopment Project Plans as prepared by URS. The City
Council recently named developing this project as a strategic goal on the City
Council Priority List for 2004.
While the overall corridor plan for County Road 10 has been developed, the
details on how to implement it have yet to be determined. Given the complexities
of such a plan and the expertise needed in developing the implementation plan,
Staff is recommending that the City send out a request for proposal (RFP) to
solicit help in developing it.
The proposal would be for Staff to develop the RFP and present it to the City
Council on February 23, 2004 for review, discussion, and approval. Staff will then
post it and send it out to qualified firms.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing and directing
Staff to develop a request for proposal (RFP) for work associated with the
implementation of the County Road 10 Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 6178
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(RFP) FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
COUNTY ROAD 10 REDEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION PLAN
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2002, the City Council approved resolution No.
5824 adopting the County Road 10 Redevelopment Project Plans as prepared by
URS; and
WHEREAS, the overall corridor plan for County Road 10 has been
developed, the details on how to implement it have yet to be determined; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recently named developing this project as a
strategic goal on the City Council Priority List for 2004; and
WHEREAS, given the complexities of such a plan and the expertise
needed in developing the implementation plan, Staff is recommending that the
City send out a request for proposal (RFP) to solicit help in developing it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council does hereby authorize and direct Staff to develop a request for proposal
(RFP) for work associated with the implementation of the County Road 10
Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan.
Adopted this 26th day of January 2004.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item No. 2
Meeting Date: January 5, 2004
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: County Road 10 Redevelopment Plan
Developing an Implementation Plan
Background / History
January 14, 2002
At a Council Work Session, the County Road 10 Redevelopment Project was
presented to the Council. This project includes the redesign and realignment of
several intersections along the County Road 10 corridor and includes pedestrian
pathways located on both sides of County Road 10. Of the several intersections
presented, each had to two or three design options associated with it. Attributes
of each of these design options were discussed and a preferred option for each
intersection was selected. In addition to the intersections design, other related
questions and issues existed, including emergency vehicle access and wetland
impacts.
January 30, 2002,
The City’s Community Development Director and Public Works Director met with
the consultant (URS Inc.) to discuss this project. The main focus of this project
involves changing the intersection geometrics of Co Rd. H2 and Long Lake Road
where they intersect with Co. Rd. 10. The intersections of Groveland Road and
Spring Lake Road with Co. Rd. 10 were originally part of the project; they have
since been excluded from the implementation phase of this project. They will,
however, remain in the project report in the event it is decided to implement them
at a later date.
April 1, 2002
At a Council Work Session, this plan was again presented to the Council. After
discussing the plan, staff informed the Council that the next step in the approval
process was to solicit public input, and that the plan would be presented at a
public informational meeting later that month.
April 24, 2002
A Public Informational Meeting was held. This meeting was held at 6:00 p.m. at
the Community Center. There were approximately 30+ people in attendance.
Representing then City was Jim Ericson, Community Development Director,
Aaron Backman, Economic Development Coordinator, and Greg Lee, Public
Works Director. Representing the City’s consultant, URS Inc., were Todd
Halunan and Greg Brown. Also in attendance were Mayor Sonterre and Council
Member Thomas.
The meeting was an open house format for the first fifteen to thirty minutes. This
gave people opportunity to view several displays and discuss the study
informally with City staff and representatives of URS Inc. At approximately 6:30
p.m. a presentation was given by Todd Halunen. A question and answer session
followed and the meeting concluded in an open house format.
The purpose of the meeting was to provide interested parties with information on
the County Road 10 Reconstruction and Revitalization Plan and to present the final
draft plans. In addition, input and feedback from the general public was also
desired.
May 6, 2002
Presented results of first neighborhood meeting at this Work Session. Staff
sought direction from City Council on how to proceed for final approval.
June 17, 2002
A second neighborhood Meeting was held.
August 5, 2002
At a Work Session, the project plans were discussed. Staff asked for final comments or
changes. Receiving no changes or revisions, Staff directed URS, the project coordinator,
to prepare the final plans for adoption.
August 26, 2002
The City Council approves resolution No. 5824 adopting the County Road 10
Redevelopment Project Plans as prepared by URS.
Discussion
The next step in following through with the plan that was adopted in August of 2002,
is to work with Ramsey County to develop an “Implementation Plan”. This plan will
outline the steps necessary to make the County Road 10 Redevelopment Plan a
reality.
A staff review of the County Highway 10 corridor considerations yielded the
following list:
1. Survey road right-of-way
Staff recommends that this occur as soon as possible. An engineering firm
could be selected through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
2. Develop plan for pathway/bikeway
Having an over all plan will made it easier to eliminate the pathway portion
of the plan. It will also ensure continuity throughout the corridor and
eliminate design problems associated with a piece – meal approach.
3. Design pathway/bikeway
Staff is looking for direction on how phase / stage the various pathway
sections. DNR Trailway grant will be applied for. The maximum grant
amount is $100,000. There it may be advantageous to break the trailway
project into smaller segments and apply for a DNR grant each year. The
County will have little, if any, financial participation on the trailways.
4. Design lighting and landscaping plan
What general design characteristics the County will allow? How should it
be phased?
5. Prioritization of intersection upgrades
Which intersections do the County and City Council see as priorities?
6. Perform environmental assessments
Having this done will increase the chances of receiving federal grant that
may be available.
7. Examine redevelopment opportunity and realignment of Long Lake Road
What is the City Council’s vision for this intersection?
8. Review closing of Hillview Road / Fairchild Ave.
This is included in the plan. Staff would like to discuss any considerations
pertaining to this closure.
9. Rename County Road 10 (e.g., Mounds View Boulevard)
Does the City Council wish to pursue this?
10. Install emergency vehicle pre-emption (EVP) devices at all signalized
intersections – Should this item be added as the intersections are
upgraded or done as a separate project all at the same time?
11. Improve safety of pedestrian crossing
The plan includes several design characteristics that will improve
pedestrian crossing safety. Are there other items that should be added to
increase safety?
12. Community entry sign(s)
Include in this plan? Location(s)? Characteristics?
Recommendation:
In an effort to secure funding from federal and other sources, it is in the City’s
best interest to formalize the project to the greatest extent possible.
Given this, staff is looking for direction from Council as to the steps Council
wishes to take and what timeframe Council wishes follow to develop an
implementation plan for the County Road 10 Redevelopment Plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No: 08K
Meeting Date: January 26, 2004
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, 2004. 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 2003. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a
minimum, in the year 2003. The type of license they are applying for follows the
company name.
Air Mechanical, Inc. HVAC Renewal
Alliance Mechanical Services, Inc. HVAC Renewal
Allied Fireside dba Fireside Hearth & Home HVAC Renewal
Amtech Lighting Services Sign Renewal
Apollo Heating & Ventilating Corp. HVAC Renewal
Aquastar Plumbing, Heating & Cooling HVAC New
Aspen Air, Inc. HVAC Renewal
Asphalt Driveway Co. Asphalt Renewal
Associated Mechanical HVAC Renewal
Automatic Garage Door & Fireplace HVAC Renewal
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco HVAC Renewal
Clear Channel Outdoor Sign Renewal
Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. HVAC Renewal
Cottonwood Construction, Inc. General (Commercial) Renewal
Crosstown Sign, Inc. Sign Renewal
DMJ Corporation Asphalt Renewal
E.L.K. Mechanical HVAC Renewal
Fedtech, Inc. General (Commercial) Renewal
Fireplace Gallary HVAC New
Fore Mechanical HVAC Renewal
Frattalone Paving, Inc. Asphalt Renewal
Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. HVAC Renewal
Golden Valley Heating & Air HVAC Renewal
Harris Companies, Inc. HVAC Renewal
Home Energy Center HVAC Renewal
Kath HVAC HVAC Renewal
K-Designers General (Commercial) New
Kraus-Anderson Construction Company General (Commercial Renewal
Leroy Signs, Inc. Sign New
M. A. Mortenson Company General (Commercial) Renewal
M.P. Johnson Construction, Inc. General (Commercial) Renewal
Master Mobile Home Services, Inc. HVAC Renewal
McPhillips Bros. Roofing General (Commercial) New
Mobile Home Improvement HVAC Renewal
Mobile Maintenance, Inc. HVAC Renewal
MP NexLevel, LLC Excavating/Filling New
Neeck Construction, Inc. Masonry Renewal
Orius Telecommunication Services, Inc. Sign Renewal
P & H Services Co., Inc. HVAC Renewal
Pierce Refrigeration HVAC Renewal
Precision Landscape & Trees, Inc. Tree Trimming/Removal Renewal
Residential Concrete Specialists Masonry Renewal
Riccar Heating & Air Conditioning HVAC Renewal
River City Sheet Metal, Inc. HVAC Renewal
RJM Construction General (Commercial) Renewal
Sandd Excavating Sewer/Water Renewal
Schirmers Concrete, Inc. Masonry Renewal
Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning HVAC Renewal
Serice Constructino, Inc. HVAC Renewal
Single-Ply Systems, Inc. General (Commercial) Renewal
St. Marie Sheet Metal HVAC Renewal
St. Paul Plumbing and Heating Co. HVAC Renewal
Standard Heating & Air Conditioning Co. HVAC Renewal
Superior Contractors, Inc. HVAC Renewal
T. A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. Asphalt Renewal
The Snelling Company, Inc. HVAC Renewal
Total Air, Inc. HVAC New
Vollhaber Heating & Air Conditioning HVAC New
Vogt Heating, Air Conditioning & Plumbing LLC HVAC Renewal
Forced Air, Inc. dba – Wenzel Heating & Air
Conditioning
HVAC Renewal
Wenzel Plumbing and Heating, Inc. HVAC New
Westair Corporation HVAC Renewal
Yale, Mechanical, Inc. HVAC Renewal
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Benesch
Item No: 9A
Meeting Date: January 26, 2004
Type of Business: PH & CB
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider the Introduction and First Reading of
Ordinance 725, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code
Establishing an Administrative Variance Approval Process; Special
Planning Case SP-120-03
Introduction:
Currently, applying for a variance can be somewhat time consuming for the applicant, Staff and
the Planning Commission. Due to the large number of variance requests received, Staff
researched another option called an administrative variance approval process, whereby the
Community Development Director could approve variance requests under specific conditions.
Discussion:
The Planning Commission discussed the administrative variance approval process at their
December 3 and 17, 2003 meetings and generally supported the idea. Based on comments and
feedback from the Planning Commission, Staff drafted Ordinance 725 to amend the current code
to allow for the alternate process. Basically, the amendment would allow the Community
Development Director to approve a variance request for property zoned R-1 or R-2 if it is a
setback request within 25% of code requirements. For example, if an applicant is requesting a
variance from the side yard setback requirement of ten (10) feet, the applicant cannot request to
be closer than seven (7) feet, six (6) inches to the side property line. In addition, the approval
cannot create a setback of less than five (5) feet and the request must meet the hardship criteria
as stated in the Zoning Code in Section 1125.2, Subdivision 2. If all the conditions are not met,
the applicant is not eligible to request an administrative variance and must apply for a formal
variance with the Planning Commission. If the Community Development Director chooses to
approve the request, the adjacent neighbors will be notified by mail and allowed ten (10) days to
respond to the approval. The Planning Commission will be given a summary report of all
administratively approved variance requests. If at any point during the process, any of the three
reviewing parties (the Community Development Director, the adjacent neighbors and the
Planning Commission) disagrees with administrative approval, the request is denied and the
applicant has the option of applying for a formal variance. The fee for an administrative variance
will be set by the fee schedule. For 2004, the fee for an administrative variance is seventy-five
dollars ($75) and an additional one hundred dollars ($100) if a formal variance becomes
necessary.
On January 7, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 748-04, a Resolution
recommending approval of a City Code amendment regarding administrative variances.
(Resolution is attached to Staff Report.)
Recommendation:
Open the public hearing and consider the testimony of residents and staff regarding Ordinance
725. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the first reading and
introduction of the administrative variance ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Prososki
Planning Associate
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution 748-04
2. Ordinance 725
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 748-04
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 1125.02 REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES.
WHEREAS, the City receives numerous setback variance requests; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission feels many of the setback variance requests received
by the City could be reviewed and considered on an administrative basis, thereby saving applicants
time and money and reducing the workload of staff; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this proposal:
a. Section 1125.02 of the City Code
b. Proposed Ordinance
c. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment
satisfies the spirit and intent of the conditions outlined in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment is not in conflict with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of an amendment to Section 1125.02 of the City Code as depicted in the
attached proposed Ordinance.
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 7th day of January, 2004.
__________________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
James Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO. 725
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1125.02 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby
amended by inserting the following underlined text, to read as follows:
1125.02: VARIANCES AND APPEALS:
Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances: A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be
issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, or in the case of an administrative variance, by
the Director of Community Development as explained in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 6, to
provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or
practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner's land. No use
variances may be issued. A variance may be granted only in the event that the following
circumstances exist:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective
date hereof have had no control.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of
fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and
conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the
standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon
other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance.
Ordinance 725
Page 2
SECTION 2: Section 1125.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended by
inserting the following underlined text, to read as follows:
Subd. 6. Administrative Variance Process:
a. Types: Residents seeking relief from the Zoning Code may request an administrative
variance, provided that:
(1) The property is zoned R-1 or R-2; and
(2) The request concerns setbacks; and
(3) The variance amount is within twenty-five (25) percent of code requirements; and
(4) Approval of the variance does not result in a setback of less than five (5) feet
b. Review Procedures: The Director of Community Development will review administrative
variance requests. In order to be approved, the variance request must meet the hardship criteria
as stated in Section 1125.2, Subdivision 2. If hardship is evident and approval is granted, the
adjacent property owners must be notified by mail of the preliminary approval and allowed ten
days to respond to the decision. The Planning Commission will be provided with a summary
review of the administrative variance prior to final approval.
c. Denial and Appeals: If the Director chooses to deny a request, or if either the adjacent
neighbors or the Planning Commission disagrees with administrative approval of a variance
request, the request is denied administratively and the applicant may choose to request a formal
variance from the Planning Commission.
d. Fees: Administrative variances fees are set according to the fee schedule adopted by City
Council resolution.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its publication in the
official City newspaper.
First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 26th day of January, 2004.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ___ day of ______, 2004.
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
City Attorney
Item No: 9E
Meeting Date: Jan 26, 2004
Type of Business: Council Business
Administrator Review : _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Ordinance 727, an Ordinance
Amending Section 1006.07 of the Building Code
Relating to Development
Background:
Staff has been made aware that conditions of a development review resolution and
conditions within a development agreement or contract cannot be enforced criminally similar
to conditions tied to variances, subdivisions or conditional use permits.
Discussion
Staff consulted with Prosecuting Attorney Hughes who provided the language to be inserted
into Section 1006.07. Adopting this language will protect the City from this point forward,
however the language cannot be applied retroactively in situations already under dispute.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance
727, an ordinance amending Section 1006.07 of the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to
enforcement of development conditions. (The City Council approved the first reading and
introduction of this ordinance on January 12, 2004.)
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Attachments:
1. Chapter 1006
2. Ordinance 727
Mounds View City Code
CHAPTER 1006
BUILDING PERMITS AND FEES; DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
SECTION:
1006.01: Permit Requirements
1006.02: Permit Fees and Expenses
1006.03: Expiration of Permits; Extensions
1006.04: Occupancy of Building
1006.05: Stop Work Orders
1006.06: Development Controls
1006.07: Violation of Provisions
1006.06: DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS:
Subd. 1. Purpose: It is the intent and purpose of this Section to provide for orderly development of
land to safeguard life, health, safety, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling
all development within the City. This Section shall be in addition to the requirements of any
other provisions of the Municipal Code regulating such development.
Subd. 2. Application of Development Controls: All new construction and expansions of existing
construction shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the
City Council as conforming to this Section, except as follows: (Ord. 692, 3-25-02)
a. Single or two (2)-family dwelling units; (Ord. 692, 3-25-02)
b. Accessory structures that meet the requirements of the applicable zoning district; (Ord. 692,
3-25-02)
c. Construction activity that increases the gross square footage of the principal building by less
than ten percent (10%) provided the area of expansion does not exceed ten thousand (10,000)
square feet. (Ord. 692, 3-25-02)
Subd. 3. Development Plan:
a. The owner or developer shall submit for review a development plan which sets forth plans
for utility service, surface water drainage consistent with the Local Water Management Plan
dated February 12, 1990, subject to subsequent revisions, erosion and sediment control
consistent with the Ramsey County Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (1989) prepared
by the Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District and subsequent revisions thereto,
streets, parking, landscaping, screening and buffering, lighting, setbacks, exterior construction
design and materials, trash disposal, construction timetable and such other matters as the
Council may require.
b. The owner or developer shall submit with the development plan an abstract of title,
registered property report or such supporting affidavits or documents that establish ownership
or any other parties of interest in the property involved.
Subd. 4. Development Contract:
a. A development contract which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements,
agreements, guarantees and plans for the orderly development of said land shall be entered into
between the developer and the Municipality prior to the final approval of any subdivision, or
project that qualifies for a Development Review, as determined by subdivision 2 of this
Section. This requirement may be waived by the City Council in the event no public
improvements are planned or proposed. (Ord. 692, 3-25-02)
b. Before execution of the development contract, the owner or developer shall submit
certification from Ramsey County Department of Taxation that all taxes and special
assessments due on the property involved have been paid in full.
c. Said development contract shall include provisions for supervision of details of construction
by the City and grant to the City authority to inspect all work performed pursuant to said
contract to assure satisfactory performance and completion of the work. (Ord. 508, 4-27-92)
1006.07: VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS: Any person violating the provisions of this Chapter
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 508, 4-27-92)
ORDINANCE 727
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1006.07 OF TITLE 1000, BUILDING AND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
SECTION 1. Section 1006.07 of the Mounds View Building Code pertaining to
“Development” is hereby amended with the proposed additions underlined:
1006.07: VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS: Any person violating the provisions of this
Chapter or any owner or developer who fails to comply with the terms or conditions of a
development contract, agreement or resolution shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 508,
4-27-92)
SECTION 2. 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 12th day of January, 2004.
SECOND READING and ADOPTION by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this
26th day of January, 2004.
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
Approved as to form:
______________________
Mounds View City Attorney
(SEAL)
Item No:9G
Meeting Date: January 26, 2004
Type of Business:CB
City Administrator Review: _____
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Chief of Police, Mike Sommer
Item Title/Subject: Approval to Promote Mike Kampa to the Position of
Police Sergeant
Date of Report: 1-26-04
Background:
On January 31, 2004 Sergeant Reed Krogh will be retiring from the Police Department
after serving for 27 years. The Police Chief has met with the Police Civil Service
Commission concerning the procedures for filling the vacancy created by Sgt. Krogh’s
retirement. The following procedures were followed:
• The position was posted for internal candidates with 5 years experience with the
Mounds View Police Department. Five internal candidates applied for the
position.
• Three steps were followed for the process of assessing the candidates. The steps
were:
1. A review of the candidate’s resume and letter of interest. Conducted and
scored by the Deputy Chief and Chief of Police.
2. Promotability index. A score based on an index of: past performance,
commitment to departmental management philosophy, integrity, dedication
and conscientiousness, writing skills, concern for fellow employees,
communication skills, and effectiveness in dealing with the public. The
Deputy Chief and Police Chief also completed this section.
3. Oral Interview. Conducted by a panel of interviewers from outside the
department. The panel consisted of the Deputy Chief of Police from
Maplewood PD, the Deputy Chief of Police from Centennial Lakes PD and
a Captain from the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. The panel members
scored the interview.
A meeting of the Police Civil Service Commission was held on 1-23-04. Based upon
the scores of the applicants, the Commission certified the top three candidates for the
position.
• The top candidate for the position is Michael Kampa. Chief Sommer has meet
with Mr. Kampa and recommends he be hired to the position.
Recommendation:
Staff seeks council approval to proceed with appointing Michael Kampa to position of
Police Sergeant. Consistent with past practice Mr. Kampa will start at step 3 wages, (as
his current wage as a patrol officer is more than step 2 Sergeant wage) He will progress
to step 4 after six months, and progress to step 5 after 18 months from his appointment
date.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Sommer
Chief of Police
RESOLUTION NO. 6172
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPOINTING MICHAEL KAMPA TO THE
SERGEANT
WHEREAS, Five applications were received for the position of Police Sergeant,
and went through a scored promotion process approved the Mounds View Police Civil
Service Commission, and;
WHEREAS, the police civil service commission certified the top three candidates.
The top candidate is Michael Kampa and;
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has met with Mr. Kampa and recommends he be
appointed to the position of Police Sergeant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
does hereby appoint Michael Kampa to the position of Police Sergeant at the step 3 rate
of pay as stipulated in the Sergeants Labor Contract for the position, with progression to
step 4 after 6 months, and step 5 after 18 months from his appointment date
Adopted this 26th day of January 2004.
______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
(ATTEST)
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk/Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: 9I
Meeting Date: Jan 26, 2004
Type of Business: Council Business
Administrator Review : _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Ordinance 730, an Interim
Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on the Siting,
Location and Operation of New Adult Use Businesses
Background:
On October 13, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 720 which eliminated the
designation of a Public Facilities Zoning District within the City of Mounds View. An
unintended consequence of this action was that certain properties and land uses were no
longer “protected” by a 500-foot buffer from Adult Uses.
Discussion
Staff consulted with the City Attorney who recommended that the City adopt an interim
ordinance establishing a moratorium on adult uses to provide an opportunity for staff to
conduct a study to determine whether additional or amended controls are necessary to
continue protecting the health, safety and well-being of the Community.
Interim ordinances do not require two readings and are effective upon their adoption by the
City Council.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council adopt Ordinance 730, an interim ordinance establishing a
three-month moratorium on the siting, location and operation of new adult use businesses.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 730
INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 730
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM TO STUDY THE IMPACT
OF THE ELIMINATION OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONING DISTRICT ON THE
SITING OF NEW ADULT USE BUSINESSES
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 720
which eliminated the designation of a Public Facilities Zoning District within the City of
Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, Section 513.03 of the Mounds View City Code provides that no adult
establishment may be located within 500 feet of a public facilities zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to study the impact of the elimination of the public
facilities zoning district on the opportunity for adult establishments to locate within the City
of Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authority, pursuant to Section 3.06 of the City of
Mounds View City Charter and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, subdivision 4, to
adopt an emergency interim ordinance to study whether new or amended controls are
necessary to fulfill the City’s legal obligation to adequately protect the public health, safety
and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned that in light of the elimination of the public
facilities zoning district, Section 513.03 of the Mounds View City Code may need to be
amended to accomplish the purpose for which it was intended; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for a study to be conducted so that the City can
determine whether such amended controls are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
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 emergency interim Ordinance No. 730.
Subdivision 1. Purpose.
a. To protect the planning process under the authority of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.355, subdivision 4, and to protect the public health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of the City of Mounds View, the City Council of the City
of Mounds View hereby adopts an interim ordinance which prohibits the
siting of any new adult establishments as defined in Chapter 513 of the
Mounds View City Code within the City of Mounds View.
b. The purpose of this Ordinance is to temporarily protect the planning process
and to allow the City to study the effect of the elimination of the public
facilities zoning district on the available area for adult establishments to
locate in the City.
Subdivision 2. Applicability of Ordinance. This interim Ordinance shall be in
effect for three (3) months after its adoption.
SECTION 2. This emergency ordinance is effective upon adoption in accordance with
Section 3.06 of the City of Mounds View City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota this 26th day of January,
2004.
______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk-Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Scott Riggs, City Attorney
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
January 12, 2004 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:00 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Gunn 16
17
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 18
19
A. Monday, January 12, 2004 City Council Agenda. 20
21
Mayor Linke asked that Items 5 and 6 be reversed. 22
23
Community Development Director Ericson asked that Item 8H be removed from the agenda. 24
25
Council Member Marty requested that Items 8A and 8E be removed from the Consent Agenda 26
and that Item 8E be placed on the worksession agenda. He then asked that Item 8A be moved to 27
the next meeting agenda for clarification from the City Attorney and the City Administrator. 28
29
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Approve the Monday, January 12, 2004 Agenda as 30
Amended. 31
32
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33
34
5. PUBLIC INPUT 35
36
Doris Hammond of 3034 Ardmore Avenue asked if Council was aware of the accident in front of 37
the manufactured home park. She then explained that a car hit the utility pole and they were 38
without power for a couple of hours and their only entrance was blocked by the numbers of 39
emergency vehicles responding. She further commented that there was a domestic situation that 40
police responded to but were hindered and unable to make an arrest because they did not have 41
access to the park. 42
43
Mayor Linke indicated that adding another entrance is the responsibility of the park but he 44
believes the park should have two. 45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 2
1
MS. Hammond asked whose responsibility it is to keep the back gate free of snow. 2
3
Mayor Linke directed Staff to look into snow removal at the back gate to determine whether it is 4
the responsibility of the park or the City. 5
6
Ms. Hammond expressed concern that the back gate that is supposed to be the secondary 7
emergency access is locked and has no snow removal. 8
9
David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road asked how residents can keep track of the loans given to 10
the golf course. 11
12
Finance Director Hansen indicated the loans are listed in the City’s annual financial reports and 13
the funds come partly from the water fund and partly from the vehicle and special projects fund. 14
He further commented that there is no secret to the loans and last year the total was just over 15
$1,000,000 and he anticipates the results to be similar this year as to 2002, which means there 16
would need to be an additional loan to the golf course. 17
18
Mr. Jahnke thanked Staff for the information and said he wanted to know where to find the 19
information. He then said that he is concerned that the course cannot even break even with the 20
billboards and asked Council to look into it. 21
22
Eric ____ of 3038 Ardmore Avenue indicated that the curve from Program Avenue to H2 where 23
the speed limit is 20 m.p.h. is an issue because there have been numerous times where people hit 24
the wall. He then asked if they could get a guardrail and said that right now there is plywood 25
patching the hole from the last time a vehicle hit it. He also indicated he is concerned with 26
35Wsouthbound because of the potential issue with vehicles hitting the sound wall. 27
28
Mayor Linke indicated that MNDOT may not agree to a guardrail but said the City would look 29
into whether anything could be done. 30
31
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 32
33
A. Senator Betzold and Representative Bernardy 34
35
Senator Betzold and Representative Bernardy appeared before Council to brief Council and 36
residents on the upcoming legislative session. They invited residents to contact them via 37
telephone or email at any time to discuss issues. 38
39
Representative Bernardy indicated there would be a Mounds View Town Hall Meeting on 40
February 14, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. 41
42
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 43
44
A. Just and Correct Claims 45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Marty. To Approve Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 2
3
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4
5
8. CONSENT AGENDA 6
7
A. Resolution 6170, Approving L.E.L.S., Local No. 232 (Police Sergeants) 2003 8
Labor Agreement 9
B. Resolution 6161, Approving a Contract Award to Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & 10
Associates (BRAA) to Assist the City in Conducting a Water Vulnerability 11
Assessment and Updating the Emergency Response Plan 12
C. Resolution 6162 Appointing Planning and Park and Recreation, and Police Civil 13
Service Commissioners and Chairpersons 14
D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, January 26, 2004, for the First 15
Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 725 Amending the Zoning Code to 16
Establish an Administrative Variance Approval Process 17
E. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday, January 26, 2004, for the First 18
Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 726 Amending the Zoning Code 19
Regarding Temporary Outdoor Structures in a Residential District 20
F. Resolution 6163, Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Dump Truck 21
G. Resolution 6171, Approving the Purchase of a Replacement ¼ Ton 4x4 Pick Up 22
Truck 23
H. Resolution 6065, Approving a Permit Application for CLIMB, a Charitable 24
Organization to Conduct Charitable Gambling at Robert’s Off 10 25
I. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, February 9, 2004, for the First 26
Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 729, Setting Sanitary Sewer Rates for 27
Service in 2004. 28
29
Items A, E and H were removed from the consent agenda. 30
31
Council Member Marty requested that Item C be removed for discussion. 32
33
Council Member Stigney asked that items F and G be removed for discussion. 34
35
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Consent Agenda Items B, D, and I as 36
Presented. 37
38
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 39
40
Council Member Marty indicated he was aware of at least one more application for the Police 41
Civil Service Commission but only two were provided. 42
43
Mayor Linke indicated the ones provided were the ones received by Friday. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 4
Council Member Quick asked what has changed from last year to this year to make the Mayor 1
decide to recommend someone for this Commission. 2
3
Mayor Linke indicated he had no one at that time that had applied that he wanted to appoint and 4
it is his position to bring appointments forward. 5
6
Council Member Quick commented that there is someone that has served on the Commission for 7
six years that the Mayor feels is not qualified as well as someone who is a former chief of police. 8
9
Mayor Linke indicated the person in question is Council Member Quick’s wife and he does not 10
think it is a good idea. He then said she has been on there a long time but during other 11
discussions for other Commissions there were conflict discussions. 12
13
Council Member Quick indicated his wife has never had a contract or owned a corporation or 14
been president of a corporation that had a contract with the City that the City had to terminate 15
and his wife has never been an employee of the City. 16
17
Mayor Linke indicated that the comments of Council Member Quick have nothing to do with his 18
recommendation. 19
20
Council Member Quick said he feels there is bias here and it has to do with terminating the 21
contract. 22
23
Council Member Stigney indicated that he is aware of one or two others that have applied and 24
there were previous applications. 25
26
Mayor Linke indicated that when he asked Desaree how many applications there were he was 27
given these. 28
29
Council Member Stigney asked someone to check with Desaree because he can give names of 30
people that have applied from the time the position was advertised. 31
32
Mayor Linke indicated that these are the names he would like to appoint. 33
34
Council Member Quick commented that the Mayor said he only got two but is now saying that 35
the other ones he does not want to appoint. He then asked if he received the other applications. 36
37
Mayor Linke said he has not seen them. 38
39
Council Member Quick commented that the Mayor had been interested in looking at the 40
Commission to change it to something else but now wants to make appointments. 41
42
Mayor Linke indicated that idea was defeated and the City needs to make appointments because 43
the City is hiring new officers. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 5
Council Member Stigney commented that it seems to him that Council is going two ways. The 1
Mayor has said that if sitting members were to reapply they would automatically get it but now it 2
seems that is not the case so it seems that it depends upon who is applying whether that is true. 3
He further commented that he would like to see all the applications rather than only these two. 4
5
Mayor Linke indicated that Council Members were given the applications from the people that he 6
is recommending. 7
8
Council Member Stigney indicated he would like to see all of the applications for the positions. 9
10
Mayor Linke indicated it is his position and duty as Mayor to pick who he feels should be on this 11
Commission and he asks for ratification by the Council. 12
13
Council Member Stigney commented that the Police Civil Service Commission is supposed to be 14
entirely independent of the Council but when he sees a certain appointment on there he is 15
concerned. 16
17
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Quick. To Postpone Appointments to the Police Civil Service 18
Commission. 19
20
Council Member Gunn asked whether Mary Shea would serve another term on the Commission. 21
22
Mayor Linke indicated she is being reappointed. 23
24
Council Quick asked whether Mary Shea put in an application for the position. 25
26
Mayor Linke indicated he did not ask her to do that. 27
28
Council Member Quick indicated the Resolution should be amended to include correct term 29
expiration dates in order to keep them staggered. 30
31
Council Member Marty indicated he spoke to Chief Sommer and was told that there are 125 32
applicants for the police officer positions. He then asked whether delaying appointments would 33
affect the hiring timeline. 34
35
Chief Sommer indicated that he has met with the existing two members of the Commission and it 36
would be helpful to appoint as soon as possible but said he could make it work if a short delay is 37
necessary. He further commented that the Commission would need to review the sergeant 38
promotion very soon. 39
40
Council Member Quick commented that there is one member on the Commission whose term 41
has expired who continues to attend the meetings and that same person is the one that the Mayor 42
will not bring forward for reappointment. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 6
Chief Sommer said it was his understanding that there are two members serving although the 1
status of one member is not real clear. 2
3
Council Member Stigney indicated that members serve until they are replaced so there are two 4
members which is a quorum of the three so he sees no issue. 5
6
Council Member Quick pointed out that there appears to be “Lionism” appearing on the Police 7
Civil Service Commission again. 8
9
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Linke) Motion carried. 10
11
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Resolution 6162, a Resolution Appointing 12
Planning and Park and Recreation Commissioners and Chairpersons. 13
14
Council Member Stigney read those being appointed. 15
16
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 17
18
F. Resolution 6163, a Resolution Approving the Purchase of a Replacement 19
Dump Truck. 20
21
Council Member Stigney expressed concern with replacing a vehicle that recently had a $5,000 22
transmission replacement. 23
24
Public Works Director Lee indicated the vehicle has a lot of other components that are beyond 25
their useful life and have the potential to fail costing the City money. He then said that since the 26
vehicle has been kept until it is 15 years old rather than the 12 year recommendation Staff 27
recommends replacement. 28
29
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6163, a 30
Resolution Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Dump Truck. 31
32
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33
34
G. Resolution 6171, a Resolution Approving the Purchase of a Replacement ½ 35
Ton 4x4 Pick Up Truck. 36
37
Council Member Stigney commented that this vehicle is assigned to the mechanic and asked 38
whether all the vehicles are assigned to specific individuals. 39
40
Public Works Director Lee indicated that not all of them are but many are. He then said that all 41
vehicles remain at City Hall with the exception of the Public Works Foreman. 42
43
Council Member Stigney asked how many miles the vehicle has on it. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 7
Public Works Director Lee indicated the vehicle is a1989 Chevrolet 4x4 but he does not know ho 1
many miles are on it. He then explained that the City has a 10 year replacement policy but at the 2
10 years the vehicle is put into a fleet to utilize for as long as possible before they are traded off. 3
4
Council Member Stigney asked if it would be possible to utilize a smaller truck or if a full size 5
truck is necessary. 6
7
Public Works Director Lee indicated that the duties of this vehicle require a full size truck to be 8
able to haul the various types of equipment. 9
10
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6171, a 11
Resolution Approving the Purchase of a Replacement ½ Ton 4x4 Pick Up Truck. 12
13
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 14
15
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 16
17
A. Public Hearing, First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 728, an 18
Ordinance Authorizing the City Council to Set Storm Water Management 19
Fees for Service in 2004. 20
21
Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. 22
23
Finance Director Hansen indicated that the numbers presented are what was discussed at the 24
work session in November. He then updated Council on the reasons behind the rate increase. 25
26
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. 27
28
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Quick. To Waive the Reading, Introduce the First Reading and 29
Approve Ordinance 728, an Ordinance Authorizing the City Council to Set Storm Water 30
Management Fees for Service in 2004. 31
32
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33
34
B. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for the Longview 35
Estates Major Subdivision. 36
37
Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. 38
39
Director Ericson explained the application for preliminary plat approval for Longview Estates 40
indicating it would be a major subdivision containing 15 lots. 41
42
Director Ericson indicated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the subdivision 43
based on unknown factors associated with the wetlands. About half of the property is wetland so 44
to subdivide the property there would be some significant fill brought in and that is shown in 45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 8
yellow on the map. The areas shaded in blue would be areas that would be mitigated to address 1
the areas that are filled. He then indicated that the application has not been reviewed by Rice 2
Creek Watershed District but it meets the basic requirements. 3
4
Director Ericson indicated there has been a lot of citizen and resident feedback on this matter. 5
He then handed out another letter from a resident concerning the subdivision and said that 6
residents are concerned about the hydrology and nature and trees as well as the setting but the 7
biggest issue is the hydrology. He then said that there would need to be significant fill on the site 8
for the house pads as there are a lot of organic soils and explained that one of the stipulations of 9
any approval would be the requirement of a soil analysis and soil borings. 10
11
Director Ericson indicated that this plan does satisfy the City’s Comprehensive Plan although 12
there is a clause that any subdivision of land needs to take into consideration the environmental 13
aspects of the property. He then read the list of requirements that would need to be conditions of 14
approval emphasizing that the applicant would not be allowed to allow any additional run off 15
downstream from his property when homes are built and cannot affect the neighboring 16
properties. 17
18
Director Ericson indicated that easements would need to be dedicated on this property and a park 19
dedication fee would need to be paid. He then said that the assessed value of this property is 20
substantially less than what Staff feels would be an appropriate value Staff recommends that an 21
appraisal be done. 22
23
Director Ericson indicated that traffic issues are also a concern of residents but the roads were 24
designed to anticipate development in the area. This development would create more traffic in 25
the area but the road is designed to handle it. He then said that Staff is concerned with allowing 26
driveways with direct access onto Silver Lake Road so one condition of approval would be that 27
all driveways along Silver Lake Road would have to have a “T” to allow room to back out and 28
turn around so the vehicles could pull out onto Silver Lake Road going forward to minimize the 29
danger. 30
31
Director Ericson indicated that the property is very heavily vegetated and the plan, if approved, 32
would mean that all of the trees outside of the wetland area be removed. He then indicated that 33
Staff recommends requiring that any trees located within the right-of-way be preserved and allow 34
only removal for driveway access. 35
36
Director Ericson indicated that Staff would need to discuss with the applicant the addition of a 37
trailway to the plan. 38
39
Director Ericson suggested that Council discuss the issues with the hydrology of the site. He 40
then said that the Planning Commission recommended denial but Staff has been advised by the 41
City Attorney that this plat does satisfy the City’s Code and he advises the Council to approve the 42
preliminary plat with specific conditions that would address and resolve any issues of the 43
residents and the City with regard to the hydrology and other issues. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 9
Director Ericson indicated there is substantial cost for a full blown hydrology analysis and 1
without preliminary plat approval it is unreasonable to expect it. 2
3
Director Ericson indicated that Staff concurs with the City Attorney’s recommendation to 4
approve subject to the many conditions listed by Staff. He then indicated that if the plan were 5
approved, the applicant would need to obtain a wetland alteration from the City and there are 6
numerous requirements that would need to be met. 7
8
Mayor Linke asked if the City is covered through a development agreement with the developer to 9
cover all Staff costs and engineering costs. 10
11
Director Ericson indicated the application that was included with the Staff report contains a 12
disclaimer indicating that the applicant is responsible for the costs associated with the 13
application. 14
15
Council Member Gunn told residents the preliminary plat approval contains 10 conditions and 16
said that the document was in the public book if they wished to read them. 17
18
Mr. Harstad addressed Council and provided an overview of his development requests for this 19
property. In 2001 he had before Council the 11 lot plat that required variances along Longview 20
Drive as the lots did not meet the lot width requirements imposed by the wetland ordinance 21
requirements. He then indicated that the City had requested Rice Creek Watershed District 22
approval before he came to the City so he obtained that and was ultimately denied the variance. 23
He further commented that the previous plan did not have any lots along Silver Lake Road and 24
would have provided a tree buffer through a conservancy easement to maintain the block of trees 25
that was 150 feet wide. 26
27
Mr. Harstad indicated that the site in general has not changed since 2001. It is the storm sewer 28
for Silver Lake Road and Longview due to the lack of catch basins in the area. He further 29
commented there is a culvert from Silver Lake Road that dumps onto this property. He then 30
indicated that when the first proposal was before the watershed, the one thing that they were 31
excited about was that the water would have been channeled to a pond to be treated before 32
entering the wetland. 33
34
Mr. Harstad indicated that as part of the new project they would be treating storm water into a 35
pond so the quality of the wetland would improve. He then said they would be doing some 36
significant land modification staying under the half an acre requirement and will be replacing 37
wetlands at a 2 to 1 ratio. He further indicated they would be filling .47 acres of land and 38
recreating, along with credits for cleaning up storm water, 8.6 acres of wetland. 39
40
Mr. Harstad indicated that he has been asked whether he likes this development better than the 41
first proposal and the honest answer is that he does not because he would prefer the buffer of 42
trees but the Council and Planning Commission said they did not want the other development 43
because it required a variance for lot width. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 10
Mr. Harstad indicated they would be utilizing the existing curb stops that are there and there 1
would be two extra curb stops that would be capped. There is sewer and water on Silver Lake 2
Road on the other side so they would have to bore under Silver Lake Road and bring it across. It 3
becomes complex as there is no curb or storm sewer along Longview. There is curb but it goes 4
to an open ditch, which is unusual in today’s age. He then said that the same is true for the 5
sidewalk, because it should be right along Silver Lake Road but the County chose to dig the ditch 6
so it creates obstacles to be worked through with the County. 7
8
Mr. Harstad indicated that there would be significant tree loss on the property but assured 9
residents that he would maintain whatever trees possible as it adds value to the project to leave 10
them. 11
12
Dallas Thompson of 5178 Longview Drive indicated that this plan would be a massive change to 13
the area and that concerns him. He then asked Council who his lawyer should contact should he 14
develop water problems in his home after the homes are built on the wetland. He further 15
commented that he has no water issues now and does not want any after the homes are built 16
there. 17
18
Mayor Linke indicated that the developer is required to follow specific criteria from the City, the 19
County, and Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure that the adjoining properties are not 20
negatively impacted. He further indicated that the water cannot flow off of this property and onto 21
adjacent properties. 22
23
Council Member Stigney asked if it is possible to state something in the development agreement 24
that Mr. Harstad has a responsibility for any water damage caused to adjoining properties 25
attributed to this development. 26
27
Director Ericson indicated the City usually requires a performance bond but the difficult thing 28
would be proving responsibility for someone’s water issue. He then said that if someone incurs 29
damage that can be directly attributed to the development the developer could be held responsible 30
but if there is some 100 year event that happens to everyone and they all have water it would be 31
difficult to prove that the water damage is directly attributable to the developer building those 32
homes. 33
34
Director Ericson indicated that the bonding could be drafted to be extended a couple of years to 35
account for any potential issues but residents would still need to prove that the water was caused 36
by the development. He then said that the hydrology analysis and Rice Creek Watershed District 37
will dictate the requirements necessary to resolve any drainage issues with the site. 38
39
Barbara Koziak of 5173 Red Oak Drive indicated she has lived at her home since 1973 and, at 40
the time they purchased the property, they were told the area was a protected wetland that would 41
not be built on. She then commented that the area is a very nice wildlife wetland area that should 42
be protected. She further commented that the bonding for any damages does not help her 43
because she does not want the damage in the first place. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 11
Mayor Linke indicated the City has a wetlands ordinance and Rice Creek Watershed District has 1
requirements to protect the area. He then said that Mr. Harstad still has to prove to the City that 2
he is not going to be damaging the wetlands and if he cannot do that the City has the right to say 3
no to the project but, to get to that step, he needs preliminary plat approval. 4
5
Ms. Koziak asked what the process is to prove he can build there. 6
7
Mayor Linke indicated that soil borings would need to be done. He then said that an independent 8
soil boring firm would be contracted and they are bound by law to provide an impartial analysis 9
of the soil. 10
11
Ms. Koziak asked how long the process would take. 12
13
Mayor Linke indicated the Resolution states that everything needs to be ready by this time next 14
year or the approval is void. 15
16
Council Member Quick pointed out that Mr. Harstad could resubmit an application if he does not 17
meet the one year deadline. 18
19
Council Member Marty indicated that there was a wetland delineation study done at the golf 20
course with soil borings and it was during a relatively mild precipitation summer and that study 21
took two years because it was necessary to have a normal summer for precipitation. He then 22
asked whether that would be an issue at this property. 23
24
David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road commented that he feels bad for the residents because the 25
fact is they were not told that legally he can do this and the bottom line is this project is going in. 26
He then said the residents thought they could stop this plan but they would have been better off if 27
they agreed to the first plat that was only 11 lots rather than 15. 28
29
Mayor Li nke commented that it is coming but there are rules that need to be followed. He then 30
said that any piece of land is open for development by the owner of the property. 31
32
Mr. Jahnke said he feels the City should have told the residents right out that this could not be 33
stopped because he feels that the 11 lot plan was better. He then suggested sitting down with Mr. 34
Harstad to ask him to go back to the 11 lot plan rather than the 15. 35
36
Mayor Linke indicated the 11 lot plan had some zoning issues. 37
38
Director Ericson indicated that the issue with the 11 lot plan was that the lots did not all meet the 39
125 foot lot width minimum. He then said he, too, prefers the 11 lot subdivision because it 40
would preserve so much of the buffer along Silver Lake Road as well as take away the access 41
onto Silver Lake Road with driveways. He further commented that this plan does satisfy the 42
City’s Code and it is the plan before Council for review. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 12
Council Member Quick asked how many homes could be placed on the property if there were no 1
wetland zoning regulations. 2
3
Director Ericson indicated that 24 lots would be possible if not for the wetland zoning 4
regulations and the wetlands on the property. 5
6
Council Member Quick asked what the minimum lot width on a regular lot in the City is. 7
8
Director Ericson indicated the minimum lot width is 75 feet. 9
10
Council Member Quick commented that the wetland zoning ordinance has decreased the impact 11
to the wetland by nearly half by allowing almost half as many lots on the site. 12
13
Mr. Harstad clarified that he had brought another plat before Council. He then said that the 14
property would qualify for 26 lots if not for the wetland zoning ordinance. 15
16
Director Ericson indicated the previous application started out as an 11 lot subdivision and was 17
amended to 24. 18
19
Steve Kuhl of 5176 Longview Drive indicated he is concerned with the properties to the east 20
because there is already standing water in the spring and during heavy rainfall events that does 21
not runoff it soaks in and then flows away. He then said that if the soils are compacted along 22
Longview in that area the soil underground will act as a dam and back water up onto their 23
properties. He further commented that the Ward family does get water in their basements now 24
and he is concerned that this will make matters worse. 25
26
Mr. Kuhl said he feels that the trees are a part of the wetland as they consume excess water and 27
they are at risk with this development. He also said there are falcons nesting in the area along 28
with deer and Pileated woodpeckers. 29
30
Mr. Kuhl asked Council to consider quality of life for the people and the animals and taking out 31
the trees destroys the quality of life for the wildlife. He then said that there is a creek bed that 32
runs toward their house. 33
34
Mayor Linke indicated that the developer would not be able to do any work in the wetland. 35
36
Mr. Kuhl indicated that he maintains that taking the trees out will affect the wetland. He then 37
said that his research indicates that some of the regulations do include consideration of the 38
wildlife. 39
40
Sandra Kuhl of 5176 Longview Drive indicated she wanted to make the Council aware that Mr. 41
Harstad is not going to be the builder of the property. He will be selling it and someone else 42
building the homes. 43
44
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 13
David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road indicated that the other plan would have saved trees and 1
had less houses on that property. 2
3
David Tilman of 5166 Longview Drive reminded Council that roughly 8 or 10 years ago a house 4
was built on the corner of Woodale and Longview Drive and residents said it would not work but 5
Council approved a split entry house and, four years later, a house could not be built on it and 6
they ended up with a one story slab home in that location because it would not support a 7
basement. 8
9
Ron Morgan of 2656 County Road H2 commented that there are major soil corrections necessary 10
with this development. He then suggested the City look into instituting some requirements that 11
limit the amount of soil that can be corrected on a site. 12
13
Mr. Morgan indicated he heard Mr. Harstad state that he liked the other development and he 14
suggests that Mr. Harstad may want to go with the other development because this will be 15
extremely expensive as proposed. He further commented that he feels the soil correction is going 16
to be extremely expensive and it may be more profitable to build a less dense development. 17
18
Mr. Morgan commented that he thinks Mr. Harstad is trying to make the City more receptive to 19
his other plan by attempting to get this development approved. 20
21
Mr. Morgan commented that residents do not get involved in the finances of the development but 22
the quality of life they have after the development is in. He then said they have had water issues 23
at his location for 30 years because it was not done right up front and he cautioned that the City 24
be very careful to make sure that water issues are not created at this location. 25
26
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. 27
28
Mayor Linke asked that Resolution 6145 be read for clarification on the conditions. 29
30
Director Ericson read the conditions of the preliminary plat approval. 31
32
Council Member Marty indicated he would like to add that the City Engineer’s approval of the 33
hydrology study be a condition as well as that the applicant is prohibited from removing trees 34
within the right-of-way except those identified for driveways. He further commented that he 35
would like the trees inventoried and marked for clarity for the workers that are removing trees. 36
37
Council Member Marty indicated that a lot of the trees in the wetland are cottonwoods and he has 38
learned that they are highly desirable because they use 50 to 80 gallons of water per day. He then 39
commented that this plan as proposed would be very costly as was just shown by another 40
developer in the City that has to do soil corrections so it may be possible that this is too cost 41
prohibitive. 42
43
Council Member Marty commented that this is a bitter pill to swallow and he has his doubts that 44
this will work when the hydrology study and engineering reports are done. 45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 14
1
Director Ericson indicated he would add the trees in the right of way to the resolution but 2
explained that the city engineer’s review of the hydrology analysis is covered in Item 1B under 3
the City wetland alteration permit. 4
5
Council Member Quick expressed concern that imposing strict tree removal requirements on the 6
developer would open the City up to a lawsuit. He then suggested that any changes to the 7
resolution be reviewed by the City Attorney. He further commented that he has suggested in the 8
past that the City should consider a tree removal ordinance. 9
10
Council Member Stigney indicated he does not feel that the City can tell someone they cannot cut 11
down their trees. He then asked whether the wetland alteration permit restricts building within 12
the 100-foot buffer. 13
14
Director Ericson indicated there are provisions in the ordinance that allow the City to review with 15
a careful eye what happens within the buffer but it does not restrict development. 16
17
Director Ericson indicated that if the standards were met the City would have a hard time 18
denying it. He then said that those standards were put into place to ensure that any alteration or 19
encroachment be minimal. 20
21
Mayor Linke suggested requiring that any trees marked as significant by the City Forester be 22
replaced at two to one if they are damaged or removed. 23
24
Mr. Harstad indicated he is a New Brighton resident and reads the community newspaper. He 25
then asked Council to carefully consider the restrictions placed upon his development as there 26
seems to be no precedent for some of the things Council is suggesting. He then commented that 27
Council is selling unimproved ground to another developer and is not requiring that developer to 28
pay park dedication fees to develop it. He further commented that the City is suggesting that 29
someone should appraise his property and he questions whether that is done in the City with 30
other properties. 31
32
Director Ericson indicated that the City has required appraisals before. 33
34
Mr. Harstad asked whether anyone has had to do two to one tree replacement. 35
36
Mayor Linke indicated that the City has not yet instituted a two to one tree replacement. 37
38
Mr. Harstad commented that the City creates ordinances that he has to live by and he is hearing 39
all kinds of new things at this meeting. He then said that the last thing he recalls was the 40
townhomes on Silver Lake Road had no tree replacement and no trail and he is asking the City to 41
be fair with him on this. He further commented that this is an infill project and it is very 42
sensitive because residents have been looking at his 7.5 acres as their own private park but he 43
pays the taxes on the property and is asking the City not to overburden him in such a manner to 44
kill the project before he gets to the starting gate. 45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 15
1
Mayor Linke indicated he was suggesting the two to one tree replacement. 2
3
Council Member Stigney indicated there is no written wording within the City to require two to 4
one replacement. 5
6
Mr. Kuhl of 5176 Longview said he believes the Minnesota Wetland Regulations do suggest, if 7
not regulate, two to one replacement. 8
9
Mayor Linke explained that is wetland replacement but that is not replacement of the trees. 10
11
Mr. Kuhl indicated that in 1974 residents came to a different Council because there was a 12
commercial development proposed on Silver Lake Road with the utility entrances on Longview 13
and residents had 485 signatures that said please do not do that. And, at that time, there was a 14
Ramsey County Greenspace Group and that is why Ms. Koziak understood this ground was not 15
to be touched. He then said that there is also an easement on the west side of Longview for an 16
interpark trail and suggested the City look into it. 17
18
Council Member Quick asked for a review of any added conditions. 19
20
Council Member Gunn indicated she agreed with Council Member Marty that the City is not 21
thrilled with this but the conditions that are listed will control whether or not this is a doable 22
development. 23
24
Ms. Koziak asked if the hydrology report refers to the ability of the ground to support the home. 25
26
Mayor Linke indicated that the soil boring test would determine whether the soils could support a 27
home. 28
29
Jonathon Thomas of 8040 Groveland Road indicated he has a background in these types of 30
projects and, if the citizens petition the Planning Commission and City Council to reconsider the 31
variance on the other project, could the plan be revised by the developer. 32
33
Mayor Linke indicated the developer can do whatever he wants. 34
35
Mr. Thomas commented that if the only reason the plan was denied was because of the 125 foot 36
lot requirements, if petitioned, the City could reconsider. 37
38
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6145, a 39
Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat for Longview Estates Major Subdivision. 40
41
Council Member Stigney commented that based upon the developer following the requirements 42
of the City Code there is no basis for denying the preliminary plat approval. 43
44
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 16
1
Council recessed at 9:27 p.m. 2
3
C. Resolution 6154, a Resolution Appointing MMKR to Provide Auditing 4
Services for the Year Ended December 31, 2003. 5
6
Council reconvened at 9:35 p.m. 7
8
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6154, a 9
Resolution Appointing MMKR to Provide Auditing Services for the Year Ended December 31, 10
2003. 11
12
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13
14
D. Resolution 6155, a Resolution Selecting the Official City Newspaper, Acting 15
Mayor, Treasurer, and Official Depositories for 2004. 16
17
Council Member Marty was inserted as acting Mayor. 18
19
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6155, a 20
Resolution Selecting the Official City Newspaper, Acting Mayor, Treasurer, and Official 21
Depositories for 2004. 22
23
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 24
25
E. Resolution 6156, a Resolution Appointing City Council Members and City 26
Staff as Representatives for City Commissions and Other Organizations. 27
28
Council filled in the required blanks in the Resolution. The appointments were the same as the 29
prior year. 30
31
Council Member Marty commented that this is the second year that Council Member Quick has 32
not been appointed to anything. 33
34
Mayor Linke indicated that he and Council Member Quick have discussed this before and Mr. 35
Quick is not available for these meetings due to his work schedule. 36
37
Council Member Stigney asked whether the banquet center committee should be included. 38
39
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that there is no longer an agreement with 40
the banquet center manager that requires that type of participation. 41
42
Council Member Marty indicated he has attempted to telephone the new management and has 43
not received a return call. 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 17
Staff agreed to contact the new management to ask that calls be returned in a timely fashion. 1
2
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6156, a 3
Resolution Appointing City Council Members and City Staff as Representatives for City 4
Commissions and other Organizations. 5
6
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7
8
F. Resolution 6157, a Resolution Approving the TimeSaver Recording 9
Secretary Contract Extension for 2004 10
11
Mayor Linke indicated that it has been a pleasure to review the Minutes. 12
13
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6157, a 14
Resolution Approving the TimeSaver Recording Secretary Contract Extension for 2004. 15
16
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 17
18
G. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 727, an Ordinance Amending 19
Section 1006.07 of the Municipal Code Pertaining to Enforcement of 20
Conditions of Development. 21
22
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff has added wording to the 23
Ordinance to ensure that all conditions of development are met and to allow Staff a mechanism 24
for enforcement. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Introduce the First Reading, Waive the Reading, and 27
Approve Ordinance 727, an Ordinance Amending Section 1006.07 of the Municipal Code 28
Pertaining to Enforcement of Conditions of Development. 29
30
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 31
32
Director Ericson indicated that the second reading would occur at the January 26, 2004 Council 33
meeting. 34
35
H. Resolution 6159, a Resolution Approving the 2004 City Council Fee 36
Schedule. 37
38
Council Member Marty suggested Council consider allowing girl scouts, boy scouts and other 39
similar nonprofit groups to use the basement at City Hall since they are now priced out of using 40
the Community Center. He also asked that reduced fees for community group use of the 41
Community Center be considered when the RFP is drafted. 42
43
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6159, a 44
Resolution Approving the 2004 City Council Fee Schedule. 45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 18
1
I. Resolution 6160, a Resolution Approving the Room Policies for the 2
Gymnasium and Other Areas of the M.V. Community Center Managed by 3
the YMCA. 4
5
Economic Development Coordinator Backman overviewed the areas that the YMCA is 6
responsible for managing and provided a drawing of the facility outlining those areas. He then 7
explained there had been a form for scheduling resident and non-resident use of the facility and 8
that form has been revised to be more efficient. 9
10
Economic Development Coordinator Backman provided an explanation of the different classes 11
of users and the priority they have for booking space. 12
13
Council Member Marty commented that Mr. Hall had mentioned something about having some 14
events that would like to use the entire Community Center including the gymnasium and asked 15
whether that would be scheduled through the YMCA. 16
17
Jeannette from the YMCA indicated that the portions of the building they are responsible for 18
managing would have to be reserved through her. 19
20
Council Member Stigney asked where commercial rental of the gym is handled. 21
22
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained how commercial rental of the gym 23
would be handled and explained that a priority group could bump an event. 24
25
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6160, a 26
Resolution Approving the Room Policies for the Gymnasium and Other Areas of the M.V. 27
Community Center Managed by the YMCA. 28
29
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 30
31
J. Resolution 6158, Approving a Step Increase for Greg Lee, Mary Burg, Aaron 32
Backman, and Mike Sommer. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution 6158, a Resolution Approving a 35
Step Increase for Greg Lee, Mary Burg, Aaron Backman, and Mike Sommer. 36
37
Council Member Stigney asked that Resolution 6158 be read. He then read the resolution. 38
39
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 40
41
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 42
43
A. City Council Minutes December 8, 2003 44
45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 19
Council Member Marty requested the following changes: On Page 7, Line 43 insert from Page 1
10, Line 36. 2
3
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Approve the City Council Minutes for December 8, 2003 4
as Amended. 5
6
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7
8
11. REPORTS 9
10
A. Reports of Mayor and Council. 11
12
Council Member Stigney indicated he had received a different agenda for the meeting with lines 13
on it. 14
15
Mayor Linke indicated he had asked Staff for an agenda with room on it to keep notes and Staff 16
provided it to all Council Members. 17
18
Council Member Stigney indicated that Mr. Thomas, as Chair of the Charter Commission, had 19
asked Council at the last meeting to look at the memo that was sent by the Charter Commission 20
to Council that they have not received a response to. 21
22
Mayor Linke asked that it be discussed at the next work session. 23
24
Council Member Gunn indicated that January 24, 2004 would be music of the night drum line 25
and winter guard competition in the new gymnasium. 26
27
B. Staff 28
29
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff would be presenting revised 30
drawings for the billboards at the golf course at the next meeting as the drawings that were 31
previously approved are not conducive to the game of golf and present some obstruction. 32
33
Council Member Stigney asked where the legal process for the billboards was. 34
35
Director Ericson explained that applications are to be resubmitted to MNDOT. 36
37
Finance Director Hansen reported that he had attended a meeting at the City of Falcon Heights 38
for business information and technology initiatives that came out of Ramsey County to promote 39
cooperation in developing and preparing computer technology. He then said he is hopeful that 40
this group can provide benefits to the City in terms of better technology and/or better prices. 41
42
C. City Attorney 43
44
The City Attorney was not present. 45
Mounds View City Council January 12, 2004
Regular Meeting Page 20
1
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, February 2, 2003 2
Next Council Meeting: Monday, January 26, 2003 3
4
13. ADJOURNMENT 5
6
Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m. 7
8
9
Transcribed and recorded by: 10
11
12
Joan Lenzmeier 13
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 14